Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:18, 21 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

Notes for self: protected pages:

• Macedonians (ethnic group) 2006/03/16

And one other I've forgotten...

Note to others: I just put that here to stop me forgetting; I don't own the protect (of course).

Vandal Hamsacharya dan

Dear WP Admin Mr. William M. Connolley,

Dan Kogan, an ordained teacher of the Hamsa Yoga Sangh cult has been creating havoc for the past weeks by relentlessly inserting the name of his guru, his guru's book, quotes from his guru's book, and external link to their website on the following articles Kriya yoga, Mahavatar Babaji, Nath, and Adi Nath when the majority of the editors (actually all of them) who are experts on the subject agree that his guru is illegitimate, his inserts does not enrich (add anything substantial) the already existing articles, and only aims to promore the personal interest of their organization.

This person wants to turn WP into a propaganda material for a highly questionable (possibly harmful) pseudo-Hindu cult while pretending to be an impartial concerned Wikipedian who only wants to enrich it. The situation is really bad. He has just been banned but as soon as he gets unbanned he begins to relentlessly vandalize the pages with irrelevant and immaterial cult propaganda once again.

It is futile to try and protect the integrity of an article when someone like this person Hamsacharya dan, like the Energizer Bunny, keeps on reverting them and gets away with it without being taught a lesson.

To see for yourself that Hamsacharya dan is really an ordained teacher of the cult he keeps on inserting to the articles and not just a concerned Wikipedian with no alterior motive, please see the following website and scroll down a bit for Hamsacharya Dan Kogan.

Please help us. Will you help us?

Thanking you in advance,

No To Frauds 11:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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).

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)

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)

Ray Bradley

Hi I agree with you, Ray Bradley should never have been speedied for the sheer fact that he is a professor and therefore has a chance to be notable. Great article though, not my brand of science, but still interesting (I am a medical bio student). Mike _{(T C)} 01:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

THanks for that! I'll call you in evidence should it ever go to VFD :-) William M. Connolley 09:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Quango

The page currently titled Quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation should be under Quango or Qango, not under its present title which is one of a number of ex post rationalisations of the acronym. Historically QUANGO for Quasi-NGO came first and that should be the heading, although other uses such as that described here were more important in the end.

I assume this kind of change requires some sort of admin process beyond the powers of a mere user JQ 07:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, its a perhaps under-appreciated fact that anyone can move a page - tab at the top. In this case, though, I suggest you talk about it on the talk page for a bit first, cos this might stir up some passions (not mine!). Of course, it is easy to create QUANGO and Quango as #REDIRECT to ] if you like. William M. Connolley 09:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem there. I put a note on the talk page a couple of weeks ago, and got no reply. Also, the article has been tagged for cleanup since Aug 2005. There are redirects in place, but I think that the page needs a change. Can you explain in more detail how this is done?

Oh, in that case, just do it: press the "move" tab at the top; its all obvious from there William M. Connolley 13:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! But unfortunately I got "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move." I suspect the problem is that the redirect page that already exists has been subject to some very minor editing. Anyway, off to "Requested moves".

OK, or tell me the exact from/to here and I'll do it William M. Connolley 09:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! From Quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation to Quango JQ 12:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Done William M. Connolley 19:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A totally separate issue

Is there someone at BAS I could talk to about the process of getting your people down to Antarctica and back again. Work related. Be grateful if you could point me in an appropriate direction, email works if required.ALR 21:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Errrm... what sort of thing do you want to know? How we do it? Whether you can too? Give me a clue :-) William M. Connolley 21:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I know how you do it, there was a mild issue reported about the last set that went down, and possibly the set that are about to come back up. I just need to talk to someone about their requirements in transit, since I'll need to look into the issue before the autumn batch. Sorry, appreciate that's a little vague. tbh I'm getting no help from my side at the moment and need to come to your people directly.ALR 21:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, bit hard to know. You can try the contact form, and it will get to the right person, but may not be suitbale if the issue is sensitive. You can mail me and I can pass it on; ditto. Otherwise, remind me on monday and I'll inquire William M. Connolley 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Noted; thanks William M. Connolley 19:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bill; arguments are underway, please come and join the fray at your earliest convenience. It's vintage James and shouldn't be missed. --DV8 2XL 04:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

canidate?

Connolley, were you a Green Party canidate? J. D. Redding

Reddi - I've made it fairly clear that I dislike your recent edits to the cl ch articles. Unless you're prepared to promise to be good, I'm not going to give out info to you that isn't already freely available William M. Connolley 09:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes (it turned up in a freely available site; and will be included unless you deny it) .... and your reckless editing POVing your 'co-blogger' bio is not "good". J. D. Redding 11:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to true info going in. I do object to you stalking me, and if you continue you're bound to get into trouble. I do also object to you reformatting the refs; since we had an arbcomm case over this, I suggest you look up the result before wasting any more of your time William M. Connolley 11:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And you only know the "true" info? (... truth is amorphous) ... but factual info should be included (mabey you sghould understand the notion of a "fact") ... Anyhoo ... I'm not stalking ... I am reviewing edits ... are you paranoid? guilty conscious?

the arbcomm case supports comprehensive reference information ... listing the 'article title' and other info helps when the link becomes defunct .. which happens quite often over time ....

Please think before you recklessly remove infomation. J. D. Redding 12:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Logo

Template:Logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Esprit15d 19:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this? It doesn't sound like one of my interests... William M. Connolley 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this against Wiki's policies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AAl-Khwarizmi&diff=42502059&oldid=42453735 This user(Iranian Patriot) has been sending out extreme anti-Arab hate messages like these, completely un-sourced, fabricated propaganda, and have nothing to do with the subject matter. He just put it to bait in users for a flame war...can something be done about this? MB 20:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll bring this up on WP:AN/I which is the proper place William M. Connolley 20:51, 6 March 2006 (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)

Request for arbitration

Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between DarrenRay, 2006BC and others. You are being named as an involved party. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a bit odd; but I await developments William M. Connolley 12:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I added you as it was unclear what the selection criteria was and I'd rather give people an opportunity to abstain than be miffed at being left out. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'distinctly dodgy Bios theory'?

Bios theory has been published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, with good impact factors (2, 0.7, etc.). No objection to this theory has been published so far. It may not be broadly acknowledged, but it is related to Chaos theory, and I will put a link there in the 'See also' section.... Lakinekaki 21:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The "see also" links should probably point to major related areas or concepts, in my view--it should be a list of some of the basic areas you *need* to know to understand the field. Most of them in the article meet that standard (with the exception of the Chaos Data Analyzer--don't know anything about that.) Even if bios theory is perfectly legitimate and related to chaos, there are probably 100 topics that are more central to chaos theory. (You can certainly be an expert in chaos theory without having heard of bios!) Consider the link to "anosov diffeomorphism": even that is probably marginal, but that's a huge field of study that encompasses some of the major inspirational examples of the field. --Experiment123 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Bios theory *isn't* perfectly legit - "distinctly dodgy" is being kind to it - see its talk page. William M. Connolley 23:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I wrote half of the article on Anosov diffeomorphism. Bios theory is ... yeah, "dodgy" is a good word for it. linas 04:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

We need an expert biologist's eye over at History of Earth. If you have time to take a look, we'd be very grateful. Puffball 21:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. Please go here, the user is a chronic vandaliser who has been warned many times.Zmmz 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Roadcruft sockpuppets

I unblocked JohnnyBGood to reblock him indefinitely as a sock of Gateman1997. I'm sure SPUI will be pleased ;-) - David Gerard 02:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Aha... thanks for that (embarassed). A lesson for me. William M. Connolley 09:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC).

Master Of RSPW

This cut & paste of a forged Usenet post on my user page is an incivil comment perpetrated by Master Of RSPW intended to besmirch my reputation on Misplaced Pages in response to an ongoing content dispute. Linden Arden 02:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why haven't you removed it? William M. Connolley 09:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That was an oversight on my part. It has now been removed. Linden Arden 18:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I shall post to WP:AN/I to try to sort this mess out, as I haven't a clue whats going on William M. Connolley 19:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I reported it elsewhere... we'll see William M. Connolley 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant sock-puppets

I bailed out of this one some time ago. I'm inclined to say that the best thing would be to permaban all of them — they're more trouble than they're worth. The origins of the business on Misplaced Pages are, to the best of my knowledge, that User:Chadbryant was followed here by one or more people who conducted a campaign of attacks and insults against him at about the level of thirteen-year-olds with learning difficulties. (His responses were little better, but there was no doubt that he was the victim.) Since then, he's probably brought a lot of it on himself, as he combines a paranoid approach to anyone who critcises or disagrees with him with a line in juvenile invective that isn't as bad as that of his erstwhile persecuters, but is still irritating. None of the naems that you mentioned (except Chadbryant and Dick Witham, who was one of the main names in the original attacks) means anything to me, though. Sory that I can't be of any help. I'd not invest too much energy in this, if I were you — it's unlikely to be resolved, and it's easy to get sucked into the whole sorry mess. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. I was hoping that one side would turn out to be the Good Guys, though I couldn't see much evidence of goodness in it all. I'll ponder your wise advice... William M. Connolley 22:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

12 minute response time (15:09-15:21) on 3rr notification board

I'm impressed! Very cool. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Gives me a target for next time :-) William M. Connolley 16:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Monobook

I noticed that you do a lot of 3RR and admin work. Want to copy my monobook? It has everything you have and much more :).Voice-of-All 17:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Could well be... how would I go about doing that? William M. Connolley 18:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

hehe...select all...cut and paste from here.Voice-of-All 18:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is designed for 1028x768 (or whatever) resolution. Voice-of-All 18:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me to add the stuff in?Voice-of-All 18:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds dangerous... let me have a poke at it... but hold on, I'm just busy blocking someone :-) William M. Connolley 18:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Decided against (the block). OK, so I'm trying the .js. Hmm... interesting. I wonder if I'll like it... William M. Connolley 19:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You had popups twice so I delete part of the script. One version is the script itself with admin features...the other references the script from Lupin (though admin = true thing is not one). Lupin's may be updated, so maybe we can switch to the referenced one...I think some admins use the reference on with the admin = true thing on (the variable will appear twice but the last one seems to take precedence...to lazy to change now, since it won't make a difference though.Voice-of-All 19:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have the block list linked up, then change the function "rrblockn()" by copying (from edit mode) over it with this:

function rrblockn() {

 username_a = document.URL.match(/:.*:(.*)/);
 username=username_a;
 var article = prompt("Enter history page URL")
 var time = prompt("Enter the duration of the block (in hours)")
 var f = document.editform, t = f.wpTextbox1;
 if (t.value.length > 0)
   t.value += '\n';
 t.value += "{{subst:" + "3rr3" + "}} I've blocked" + username + " you for " + time + " hours. Here are the reverts in question. ~" + "~" + "~" + "~";
 f.wpSummary.value = "User notice:" + " temporary 3RR block";

}

That should do it :).Voice-of-All 23:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocking Anderson12

I've indefinitely blocked Anderson12 per sock evidence, checkuser, and this image, which was also uploaded by Basil Rathbone. I'm bringing this to WP:AN, but I thought you'd want to know since you placed the 1 month block. Ral315 (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough to me. Thanks for letting me know William M. Connolley 20:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Assistance request, if the issue hasn't already been dealt with....

I've got a sock on Freemasonry again. This time it's Keystrokes (talk · contribs). He's already tried to add the Anti page back in (first or second edit), has accused me of vandalism for cleaning up externals (in <5 edits), and we've already gotten to "demented Masonic lies"(<10 edits). So, while I've reported things to the appropriate places (which have all moved around for some reason), I would like to have somebody apprised of the situation, because it's going to escalate a bit faster this time, given the trend. MSJapan 15:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't quite been dealt with. There's an obfuscated 3RR we're sorting out (there's definite section gaming), I've got a PA from Keystrokes on my talk page here (not a big deal, though he admits he's not a new user), and Keystrokes has made his bias clear here, so if he's not a sock, I'd be very surprised, but the RFCU hasn't been done yet. MSJapan 16:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And his POV is pretty blatant here. MSJapan 17:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Answered on 3RR William M. Connolley 17:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Southern vacillations

There's an edit about SB03 that is in dire need of improvement. It's right up your alley. FYI, Daniel Collins 20:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC).

Young_Zaphod sockpuppet 68.162.128.9

Looks like Young Zaphod is editing from 68.162.128.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to get around his block. I should note this is actually an IP address you'd identified and blocked a day as a sock a couple days ago. Ehheh 21:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for incivility William M. Connolley 23:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Belarusian language

There was no reversal war in the article about Belarusian language, at least not in the conventional sense. It was one lying Russian POV-pusher who knows virtually nothing about Belarusan language (and doesn't speak it), and there were many Misplaced Pages editors who tried to block and revert his unreasonable additions (most of his "improvements" being Russian imperial POV).

Sincerely yours,
a native speaker of Belarusian, the owner of the linguistic Belarusan website http://www.pravapis.org/ site (#1 site on Belarusian language on the Web), a specialist in Belarusian-language localization of software, and a Belarusian language editor from the Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. --rydel 21:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh good, well if it was (and is) one against many, there will be no need for you to get close to 3RR then William M. Connolley 23:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You measure the truth by the number of lemmings? --rydel 11:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to try for some consistency. Do you have just one opponent, or many? William M. Connolley 12:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My point was not about this particular case (if one knowledgeable person says "X is true", and thousands of others say "X is false", you can't decide an argument by counting the votes). As for your question, luckily I don't have any serious opponents. In this case it's basically one person (Kuban Cossack), sometimes "helped" by a second person - Ghirlandajo (a Wikipedian who was under RFC for pushing imperialistic Russian POV and disrupting behaviour ). --rydel 12:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Depleted uranium disambiguation

Hi. Since some people are known (to my dismay) to refer to me as "N" as a shortcut, you might want to disambiguate your evidence to make clear that you are referring to James Salsman, and not me. Thanks. Nandesuka 13:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, will do William M. Connolley 15:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Overlooked image?

Hey Mr. TL-C's puppetmaster, it looks like Image:IMG 0335-james-clark-ross.jpg didn't get a GFDL like the others. (The untagged images project sees all sins!) Stan 13:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

C'est moi. Tagged! Thanks for the notice William M. Connolley 15:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Scientific peer review

Wasn't sure if you were aware of this, so I thought I'd give you a heads up. Guettarda 16:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was half-aware. I'll go and become fully aware :-) William M. Connolley 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll volunteer - it's probably best to explain ones credentials oneself. And yeah, I forgot about Dunc. I'll mention it to him. Guettarda 20:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a example of a good or featured science article of yours? This would make it easy to vote in your favour in the project.--Stone 22:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure thats the right idea. In fact I would say its wrong. William M. Connolley 23:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If this is wrong would it than be right to ask you if you participated in a PR with good arguments and helped to improve a article? For me the administrative abilities and a large number of edits are simply not enough for SPR. --Stone 06:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't got time to be on a committee, but I could look at econ articles from time to time JQ 07:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That might be useful. It may become clearer at some point what this board might do... William M. Connolley 09:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask.

Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

monobook

I noticed that you are not using the AN/3RR tabs. Note that you can custimize them by changing them (or you can tell me what you want them changed to exactly).Voice-of-All 02:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Its taking some getting used to. Err. Maybe tonight. William M. Connolley 09:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Antarctic Expedition

If you are interested, and don't have access to JSTOR, I can send you a PDF copy of the paper that I cite in the article, it mentions extensively the subject that you just talked about. If you like, just email me through the Misplaced Pages email function and I'll reply attaching the paper. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 18:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats OK, BAS has an extensive historical section in the library... now you've started this I may try to add some more William M. Connolley 19:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, not surprising, it would be great to have some more input, even if its just in laying out the article etc. I'm kind of stumped for the scope of the article, what to include, what to leave out etc. Its a very big subject :) - FrancisTyers 20:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Block

Hi, you appear to have blocked an AOL I.P. unfortunatly this has also blocked me as AOL uses proxy servers. The message says it was for a 3rrr on Quizzing.co.uk could you please unblock my I.P. Thank You. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 20:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can post here, you're not blocked :-) William M. Connolley 20:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR/Jw6aa

Hello, as you've invited discussion on User talk:Jw6aa I'm sure you've watching it, but you might as well know that Jw6aa has something to say. Also I'd be interested to know more about your 3RR blocking philosophy (it's probably a good one, and I'm not questioning what you just did), so I'd be interested to see the expansion to User:William_M._Connolley/3RR. Thanks. Petros471 20:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne

Hi, I was just wondering if Licorne should be editing pages such as Einstein or Hilbert. I was on the David Hilbert page and saw some editing by Licorne that seemed somewhat suspicious. Now, I have no expertise in the matter, so I have no idea whether what he is writing is true or not, but given his past history with the subject, it gained my attention. Perhaps you could take a look? Thanks for your time. Delta 23:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're around and have a hankering to block someone, see User_talk:Licorne#Personal_attacks_2. --Fastfission 00:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I ended up blocking him for 48 hours, just as a safegap measure for now. Not sure what ought to be done with him in the long term, though, but I think even the RfAr is fairly unnecessary at this point -- he's nothing but a petty anti-Semite, in the end. I wouldn't normally block someone who I had filed an RfAr against but I figured nobody would very much care in this instance. --Fastfission 01:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked and reblocked for a week in case someone objects to your block Fastfission. Should've been infinite. Vsmith 01:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Joke has now blanked/protected Licornes page, so I didn't get to see, but since L is going down on RfAr, this seems pretty sensible. Thanks for letting me know William M. Connolley 08:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Check the evidence I have presented at the RfAr if you have a strong stomach. It has links into the page history.--Stephan Schulz 09:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On the basis of that, I think L could be blocked indefinitely. I guess L has seen the writing on the wall at the RFA and is venting spleen while they can William M. Connolley 13:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Weather and monsoon on AID

Hi William, maybe you are interested in voting especially for weather, but also monsoon on WP:AID, both of which are close to missing their thresholds.

Happy to vote for both of those William M. Connolley 08:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also wondering if you're coming to Edinburgh for the Antarctic treaty meeting in June? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. In fact I didn't know it was on :-( William M. Connolley 08:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Incivility by two users

Hi, WMC check this out please, an anon user and user Ahwaz engage in some extremely vulgar language with each other. Please read the entire texts though.Zmmz 03:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahwaz was obvious enough. The anon was less obvious... could you be more specific? William M. Connolley 08:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don`t know anything more specific about per se, other than the diffs I provided. But, I do agree that user Ahwaz`s language was much more vulgar than the annon user.Zmmz 08:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Connolley, Ahwaz is feeling extremely hurt by your action, given that he had had second thoughts about his angry outburst and had already deleted it. The anon had insulted him in Persian, accusing him of being an Iraqi, a Baathist, and telling him that he was just a no-good Arab. Ahwaz is an Arab from the Iranian province of Khuzestan, the one that was devastated by the Iran-Iraq War. Thousands of Iranian Arabs died defending the province from the Iraqis, so Ahwaz was devastated to be called a traitor.

I'm not defending Ahwaz' outburst -- he does have trouble controlling his temper at times -- but it's not quite fair of you to censure HIM for reacting, while ignoring the gross provocation on the part of the anonIP. The fact that the anonIP insulted him in a foreign language isn't a valid reason for ignoring it.

The role of Zmmz in all of this is also troubling. Zmmz is one of a posse of Iranian nationalist editors who have been extremely active lately in trying to stamp out "anti-Iranians" on WP. Look at this report by Lukas Pietsch on their activities: . Zmmz is calling for the "anti-Iranians" to be censured or banned for their infractions of Misplaced Pages rules. So of course he's running off to report to an admin when one of the posse manages to goad one of the targets past endurance. He used you in furtherance of his goals.

Of course Zmmz will probably pop up to tell you that I'm a known "pro-Arab" and "anti-Iranian". Funny that, given that I'm a Zen Buddhist living in Honolulu and I spend a lot of time editing Indian cinema articles but ... praps I've been an undercover Arab from birth, despite my Swedish real name.

In any case, it would make Ahwaz feel much better if you could say a kind word to him. Could you, please? Zora 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second Zora's request with respect to Ahwaz' block. I've tried to advise him and I don't condone his original incivil remarks, and I can also understand you were irritated at his exaggerated reaction, but then again, given the circumstances and given the current state of the blocking policy (which does not list PA as a routine blocking reason AFAIK, and certainly not without prior warning), I do think the block was rather on the strict side. Lukas 12:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it`s very uncalled for these two users above to spam the talkpages of admins anytime someone is blocked for using profanity. I also think it is not appropriate for user Zora to label me, or use such incivil language against me, or bring some political issues into this. WMC did a good job, that is standard prodecure, and no speciall favours should be allowed. For the record, I think those users who engaged in personal attacks should be blocked.Zmmz 23:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll say a kind word to Ahwaz (have now done so). Sadly its too late to lift the block. I'm not happy with Zmmz's role in this either. But it's not quite fair of you to censure HIM for reacting, while ignoring the gross provocation on the part of the anonIP. The fact that the anonIP insulted him in a foreign language isn't a valid reason for ignoring it is wrong, and I would have expected you to realise that: I can't possibly block people, or take any action at all, based on words I can't understand William M. Connolley 09:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WMC, armed with a friend who understands that language, and a dictionary, I don’t mind volunteering to translate the comments by the anon user, so to be fair, he or she can get blocked too. I reported both of them, because since I came to Wiki, I had to endure many incivilities, personal attacks and other, and if there is anything I can do about it, other than stooping to the level of the attacker, I will; and in most cases it means reporting such behaviour. But, I still do not appreciate that these two users dragged me into this. If you need my help, let me know please.Zmmz 10:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No thank you. This issue is now over. There is, perhaps, scope for a discussion of what to do about possibly offensive material in foreign languages, but the place for discussing that is not here William M. Connolley 10:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking

Let me put it this way. I am familiar with virtually all of the details that went into the intervention of the Wikimedia Foundation office in this case. I undertook to rewrite the article and establish new guidelines for sourcing claims and choosing references on the article. I posted these with the approval of the Wikimedia Foundation office. I haven't been specifically authorized to invoke the office policy, or I'd be looking to have those making these edits blocked for violating it. However, I believe that the office continues to support my actions, and you are certainly welcome to inquire with them directly.

All of the edits I have reverted, in my opinion, violate the guidelines I wrote. The guidelines call for reverting such edits. On an article where proper sourcing is critical, even time-critical, we have a number of editors with little or no concept of how to select and evaluate sources. Under the circumstances I am confident that Ignore all rules is appropriate to invoke with respect to my violations of the three-revert rule. --Michael Snow 23:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have inquired with the office. I'm not going to do anything until they reply (well actually I'm going to go to bed now, without awaiting their approval :-). I *do* think that there ought to be a section of the talk page - or the office talk page - explaining such things, for the benefit of those driving by William M. Connolley 23:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom 3RR report

There are additional comments since you last posted to Irishpunktom 3RR CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 23:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you shirking your admin duties? CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 23:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that the only contribs by 208.201.242.19 have been to set up the 3RR against me, and then to rally users, including yourself, to try and have me blocked. I'm not going to be near a PC tomorrow, and Its just past the witching hour here, so if you want tomake life easier for yourself you can go ahead and block me! I won't contest not contend. --Irishpunktom\ 00:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Double Standards

User:William M. Connolley, I couldn't help but notice that user:Zora has posted some accusatory comments on your talk page, an administrator's talk page, labeling me and many other hard-working wikipedians as a "posse of Iranian nationalist editors". Now, I've been warned by an administrator in the past for simply using the term "Kurdish nationalist" in a non-direct fashion. But the administrators who seem more than happy to sanction the Iranian editors for every little fraction of rules, are not consistent in the application of wiki rules and simply ignore highly inappropriate comments by certain individuals (User:Zora, User:Aucaman, and etc) which are directed at the Iranian editors, case in point is Zora's accusatory comment on this very page or her prejudiced comments on another page calling Iranians scary and saying that "The Iranians are just as scary as the Hindutva folk. If they get the bomb too, that's an axis of potential insanity right across central Asia."

I believe in your neutrality, so please take a closer look at this issue and make the appropriate decision. --ManiF 10:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down a bit and be a bit less sensitive. If you're going to be so touchy, please lay off the snide comments about admin neutrality. And to everyone else: try to be more civil on my talk page please William M. Connolley 12:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sensitive at all. My comments about neutrality weren't directed at you at all, as I explicitly stated that "I believe in your neutrality". My main concern here is Zora's prejudiced comment about Iranians here In my opinion, that warrants a serious warning as I've been warned for far less offensive stuff. --ManiF 13:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, back off the warning-hunting, the comparative insults, etc etc. William M. Connolley 13:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you think?

"Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental. Your Cyrus the Great was nothing but an illiterate and murderer. But still he is long gone and forgoten. What is your excuse for being one.....? Your dad is a mercenary".

This is the translation of a comment User:Aucaman left here

For your information, Cyrus was the founder of then Persia, now Iran.

Do you think he is fit to 'contribute' to Iranian articles when he has a strong anti POV against Persians/Iranians?

Me and others have asked him to comment on this however he repeatedly archieved his talk page! --Kash 10:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd like you to answer the question I left on your talk page, before I start answering any of yours William M. Connolley 11:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Connolley my dear friend, as I believe Zmmz told you, he posted the matter and I signed it as behalf of Iranian editors. --Kash 22:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats a bad idea, as its confusing. But since it has your name on it, perhaps you'd care to go and correct it with your name? William M. Connolley 09:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Communalism on Misplaced Pages

Sir, it has come to my attention that a group of people are mobilising on communalist lines against those they regard as "anti-Iranian" and "anti-Persian". See this Misplaced Pages notice board: I have no problem with people coming together to exchange opinions and on a range of articles and, in a subject as vast as Iran, it could make sense. But this is not what this notice board is about. It explicitly says the notice board is for "Iranians", not a broader range of people with an interest in Iran. See which says "This is solely for awareness of other Iranian Wikipedians to join discussions on controversial topics."

Then there is a section entitled "Users to keep a watch on" , which lists those "users who are widely known to systematically, methodically, and deliberately be involved with dismantling, attacking, debasing, and injecting misinformation into Iranian related articles." It accuses them variously of being anti-Iranian and even "terrorising". It lists their ethnicity, as if no Turkic, Azeri or Kurdish editor can be classified as Iranian. On this page, I have been accused of "spreading anti-Persian propaganda" simply for debating the issue of the Arab population of Khuzestan.

I and other editors have been the target of racist abuse and we have been warned - you punished me by blocking me for 24 hours. Yet, it seems that Misplaced Pages takes no action over this and even allows people to mobilise on communalist lines and target individuals! It goes beyond the necessary requirement to organise people to contribute to Iran-related articles and into a vindictive campaign to force people out of Misplaced Pages. Is this the "civility" you and others were telling me to abide by?--Ahwaz 11:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, calm down a bit. Second, I've posted a question at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard about this William M. Connolley 12:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Crossing wires on 3RR

Sorry for crossing the streams with you on that Macedonian article. Nandesuka 19:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I've just had a look: they are talking William M. Connolley 20:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Resid

I also find that weird. I've reblocked him the 50 hours he's supposed to be blocked for. I'm also thinking of filing an arb request. Thoughts? NSLE _(T+C) at 11:02 UTC (2006-03-18)

JS

I re-added the JS, but without the popups. That should work. Tell me if there is anything else you want changed.Voice-of-All 19:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ta! I'll give it a go... William M. Connolley 19:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Try protecting and unprotecting articles (leave the tag)...its really fun for some reason :-)!Voice-of-All 19:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hobbes

Hobbes is a character in Wing Commander games and novels. As Hobbes is redirected to Thomas Hobbes, I find it logical to refer to the page of the character. Moreover, the same has been done for the comic strip. 84.193.3.47 20:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The comic strip is far far more notable. We can't list every thing or object called Hobbes. Possibly the redirect page should become disambig William M. Connolley 20:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User block?

Hi William. Well, it has happened again. We recently had another revert war over on the various Freemasonry related pages. It is the same problem as always... one POV agenda pushing user who ends up being yet another sock of User:Lightbringer/User:Basil Rathbone, etc. This time he is going under the sock name of User:40 Days of Lent. We ran a sock check on him, and it does check out that this is the same person. Since an arbitration banned him from editing Freemasonry related pages undsr his other sock names, could you slap an indefinite block on him under this name. He may currently be blocked for 24 hours due to a 3rrr... but that will expire shortly, if it has not already happened. If you feel you need to review the situation, look at his edit history, especially on Talk:Freemasonry paying attention to the history (another user has deleted some of his vandalism, so it is not readily apparent.) Thanks. Blueboar 22:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair enough; I've blocked (but next time put the sock check evidence link here so I don't have to go looking for it) William M. Connolley 22:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Question re: User Conduct RFC

The policy states that before submitting a User conduct RFC, attempts to solve the problem must be clearly made within the same 48 hour period by two or more users. Does that mean that the RFC can only deal with very recent issues within the last 48 hours, or within a given 48 hour period, or can it be extended to show a repetitive pattern if one is evident? MSJapan 23:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours? That means that *after* the RFC is listed, it needs to be certified by 2 people. It doesn't mean the dispute has to have been over the last 48. Although it would be slightly odd to file the RFC is there hadn't been any recent problems William M. Connolley 10:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple enough. The RFC is not re: Freemasonry, though, but for Jahbulon, because we seem to be going in circles because of one user, and it's really getting out of hand. MSJapan 16:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hi there, I just want to get a second opinion from an admin, so would you please look at this section and see if there are any violations, like incivilty, etc. Yeah, and you definitely don`t have to warn the editor in question --but, I just wanted to get an idea of what is going on. Can I report this guy for harrassment? ThanksZmmz 09:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Um... do you really mean that section? I see you an InShaneee talking. Or do you mean the "response" bit? Lukas posted, tentatively. You replied; not unnaturally he took that as meaning that talk was appropriate. If you don't want his words on your talk page, remove them, don't reply to them, and certainly don't reply at length. Also Lukas, your vicious language does not lend further credibility to you. was inappropriate. William M. Connolley 10:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring only to the section, `Response`, by user Lukas. I understand what you are saying, but if you can, please re-read that section; I had asked Lukas to take his grievances to the Rfc page last week, yet, he does in fact continue to write, and accuse me of many different things, and just uses an all out abbrasive tone. But, most of the language he uses, I think warrants a report to be written up against him for incivility and/or stalking. Let me know your take on it? Thank youZmmz 10:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to look at the section that Lukas originally posted on my talk page; that is if you`re looking into this at all.Zmmz 10:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've re-read the response section. What more can I say? I stand by Lukas posted, tentatively. You replied; not unnaturally he took that as meaning that talk was appropriate. If you don't want his words on your talk page, remove them, don't reply to them, and certainly don't reply at length. William M. Connolley 13:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Good, that is why I originally erased his comments, but he threatened that erasing comments from the talk page can be viewed as, get this, uncooperative behaviour. I just don`t appreciate `Lukas` using language like, disgrace to Misplaced Pages, none of your business, Please re-read every single word of what I said above, try to take it in, and then go away, and if you have any decency. I don`t recall using language like that with anyone since I`ve been here, so certainly we are not on the same footing. I thought a warning was warranted. Zmmz 21:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hamsacharya dan

Dear WP Admin Mr. William M. Connolley,

Dan Kogan, an ordained teacher of the Hamsa Yoga Sangh cult has been creating havoc for the past weeks by relentlessly inserting the name of his guru, his guru's book, quotes from his guru's book, and external link to their website on the following articles Kriya yoga, Mahavatar Babaji, Nath, and Adi Nath when the majority of the editors (actually all of them) who are experts on the subject agree that his guru is illegitimate, his inserts does not enrich (add anything substantial) the already existing articles, and only aims to promore the personal interest of their organization.

This person wants to turn WP into a propaganda material for a highly questionable (possibly harmful) pseudo-Hindu cult while pretending to be an impartial concerned Wikipedian who only wants to enrich it. The situation is really bad. He has just been banned but as soon as he gets unbanned he begins to relentlessly vandalize the pages with irrelevant and immaterial cult propaganda once again.

It is futile to try and protect the integrity of an article when someone like this person Hamsacharya dan, like the Energizer Bunny, keeps on reverting them and gets away with it without being taught a lesson.

To see for yourself that Hamsacharya dan is really an ordained teacher of the cult he keeps on inserting to the articles and not just a concerned Wikipedian with no alterior motive, please see the following website and scroll down a bit for Hamsacharya Dan Kogan.

Please help us. Will you help us?

Thanking you in advance,

No To Frauds 11:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, your user name is not a good choice. I recommend you change it. Secondly, flinging around charges of vandalism in what looks rather like a content dispute is probably inflamatory. Thirdly, he has only edited the article in question once since the end of his block, so all the Energizer Bunny stuff is also inflammatory. Calm down, look at WP:DR William M. Connolley 13:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Hamsacharya dan

I don't know if you noticed, but the first edit made by this user after you unblocked him had a deceptive edit comment. This guy doesn't seem to be able or willing to engage in discussion on talk pages. If you look at the talk page for this article, you will see that he didn't participate in a recent survey, nor in any subsequent discussion. He keeps trying to apply his changes arbitrarily, and will not discuss either before or after. TIA for you attention to this matter. —Adityanath 15:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh-hu, and no doubt you wanted to draw my attention to this inappropriate edit comment too. I see plenty of discussion by HD on that page. I also see a reasonably successful attempt at mediation: I urge you to help make it work William M. Connolley 15:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I'm ignoring User:NoToFrauds. He's as much a fanatic as User:Hamsacharya dan; both parties repetitive reverts are doing more harm than good, imo. —Adityanath 16:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Weeeeeeeeeeelll if you are ignoring them both, why aren't you? Also, judging from the talk pages, NTF is a good deal more fanatic. But thats not judging by the edit contents. William M. Connolley 22:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. NTF removes everything HD does. I am more in agreement with NTF personally, but I believe HD's guru does deserve some mention in the articles involved. Unfortunately, when NTF removes HD's stuff, HD has a tendency to revert to pre-consensus material which promotes rather than informs about his guru. HD seems to want to use WP as an advertising platform. Because this advertising includes outrageous claims, others want to rebut or qualify these claims. I've advised HD that the problem would tend to go away if he simply stuck to facts, but I guess this would paint his guru as too mundane. Not sure what to do... —Adityanath 22:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, Aditya, the way things have been going, we've sort of turned into rivals - I think you are a bright man, and if we're to be honest, you also have a strong devotion to uphold your Gurudev Mahendranath's teachings. I admit that when I started in Misplaced Pages, I was a bit too brash with my changes of the Nath page - I was a novice and the policy instructions say "Be Bold!" I feel that may have initiated our ongoing conflict. I regret forming this rivalry with you, and would prefer to come to a resolution and consensus. I understand that there are some problems you have with certain of my edits that sound outlandish, and I have had problems with people distorting or deleting my edits - why don't we start over with each other, and talk about what we like and don't like about the way each other are handling this conflict and the pages we both care about - Nath, Yogiraj Gurunath, Kriya Yoga, Mahavatar Babaji. I have felt overwhelmed in the past due to additional destructive contributions by NoToFrauds, but I feel that these are dying down, and we can work together to come to consensus. I'm offering a truce, and a calm discussion. Let's start by not editing anything, but first finding a common ground and discussing our thoughts. We do have a lot in common after all. Then we can discuss how we envision these pages ending up. We may clash, but let's work towards a spirit of resolution rather than rivalry. I did this with Priyanath, and it has worked. Try me. Hamsacharya dan 06:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)