Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:47, 27 September 2006

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

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.

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)

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)

Climate

The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has identified this article as a core topic in need of attention, as it needs a lot of editing to bring up to FA standards. Since this is your area of expertise, would you be willing to improve this article? Titoxd 03:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, will take a look William M. Connolley 11:17, 12 April 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)

And to think

..I knew you when. Why didn't you mention this?

• KNOW IT ALL - Can Misplaced Pages conquer expertise? KillerChihuahua 16:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. I did my best with them :-( William M. Connolley 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

rm of red links

How about red links inviting people to write about it? Errabee 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point in adding a pile of non-notable links to that page. Red-link is a reasonable test of non-notable. If you care, why not create thse things first? William M. Connolley 15:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Both novels are certainly notable. About the manga I'm not so sure, but manga isn't my field of expertise. According to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Redlinks, redlinks can be added if you are sure the information is notable. I am planning on writing the Fandorin article about Leviathan, but there are so many things to do. Point is however that redlinks are allowed on dab pages, and that caution should be exercised when adding them but also when removing them. Errabee 15:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This has already used up more words than its worth... I won't re-remove them yet. Next time someone adds some more fancruft to the page, I'll probably take out all the redlinks again, so you've got as long as that is... William M. Connolley 15:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You're acting against official Misplaced Pages policy here. But if that's what it takes to stop you from removing it, I'll create a one-liner. Errabee 15:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Climate II

There is a current scientific consensus that humans are causing a rise in global temperature right now, have been in the last few decades, and that it will almost certainly continue unless we do something to stop how we're impacting our climate. Not much of that seems debatable rather than on a matter of degree, which is inherently a matter of contention. Now it seems more so as if it is time for the political, economical and societal portions of the issue to take charge, but without taking over. In this capacity, science in general and climate scientists in particular should try to give as honest and unemotional an answer as possible when asked about the current state of knowledge. If not, science simply becomes either part of the politics or becomes politics in and of itself, and it is then oft dismissed as being biased. That is not really a good state for anyone involved. Taking a stance is a good thing, but not to the exclusion of the realities involved to take that stance to anywhere other than where one is standing.

Hopefully, in any certain area discussed, the person or group answering is expert enough to add positively to the discussion, at least from their viewpoint, and so as to adequately show the opinions that differ; so as to allow us engage in some manner of honest debate. We should realise that matters of opinion will always differ between people and groups of people, but facts and neutrality should be attempted to be practiced upon all aspects of the discussion involved, be they scientific or otherwise. And yet still, science can always be finding manners by which to influence other processes associated, as such are usually also a part of science, wanted or not. Being non-political while still getting one's point across, as much as possible, helps to make viewpoints known and also helps involve those with a stake in the debate into it as openly as possible. This also helps shape the policy aside from one that is based purely upon the science (or any other single point) of an issue under discussion. Such is how things work in most cases, regardless of how we might wish them to be. Light travels at 186,282 MPS in a vacuum, but science does not exist in one.

One problem is that simply saying "There is a scientific consensus on global warming" because to many that is a fairly vague statement. As such, it opens the subject to a discussion of specifics rather than just a statement from a particular view, where the participants may know what it means, but others often do not. The “public” may not know from a scientific standpoint exactly what given terminology means, and many of the reported major media stories are about 'now now now, bad bad bad'. Leading off with that sort of viewpoint is not often a common ground with which to find consensus on the larger issues.

Looking at what William M. Connolley (Oxford, BA Arts and PhD Philosophy), a Senior Scientific Officer in the Physical Sciences Division in the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System project at the British Antarctic Survey, said at Real Climate in late 2004 regarding the four scientific consensus main points (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86) of the IPCC. Our interpretation of the post and subsequent replies, as well as other discussions of the subject, is that people in general might not realise the full scope of either the reported consensus or the conclusions of the current disagreement. The rhetoric at times swamps the facts, and often the background noise becomes the foreground matter of life and death. Knowing what the discussion is actually about is important to discuss it rather than argue about it.

To paraphrase Dr. Connelley's insightful post at Real Climate: The IPCC shares the view of every major scientific organization in the world. In its 'Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis', the scientific consensus on climate change is detailed as being basically this: The Earth has become warmer by .17 degrees centigrade in the last 30 years and .4-.8 C in the past century; people are causing this increase in warmth; and if the emissions don't stop, warming will continue and increase. Dr. Connelley then lists that the somewhat disputed conclusion is that this is a problem and we should do something about it before it gets worse. He then states that basically, and quite correctly in our view, that agreement on that last point between reasonable people will probably depend upon the scope, width, breadth and degree of the problem area being discussed.

Hopefully, we have categorized his views correctly, and think ourselves that the conclusion is overall true. We mostly agree with him on this subject, even though his opinion on weasels is quite obviously incorrect, as any school child knows that badgers are the key to enlightenment.

Leaving you with two different unrelated quotes from a government report, House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, 2nd Report of Session 2005-06, The Economics of Climate Change Volume I: Report, which is itself a matter of contention as well. However, it certainly supports the idea of more public awareness and it also supports continued or increased funding of more research in the area of climate, to better understand this issue and how it impacts other issues or factors in this one. The idea is that anything involving something as complex as climate science can be simple or easy, or that factors exist on their own at times outside of the realm of being able to control them; this is the reality. Issues such as these almost always involve policy, so attempts to take policy into account, that's a variable that is not very independent. And by that measure, taking policy into account is almost certainly scientfic, at least in a way.

"We are not convinced that there is sufficient public awareness of this issue. Any public misperception on these issues could threaten the political feasibility of getting plans of action put into effect. If climate change is as serious as most scientists claim, and as the Government accepts, then it is important to convey the complementary message that the action to tackle it will also have to be serious and potentially life-changing. It is better to be honest now than to shield the public from the economic realities inherent in the more pessimistic forecasts."

"We do not propose to evaluate these doubts, nor are we qualified to do so. We are also aware that climate scientists who adhere to the human-induced warming hypothesis have responses to most of these sources of doubt. But the science of climate change remains debatable. We heard from witnesses who seemed in no doubt at all about the science, while others expressed one or more of the above concerns. That makes it clear that the scientific context is one of uncertainty, although as the science progresses these uncertainties might be expected to diminish and be resolved, one way or the other. Hence it is important that the Government continues to take a leading role in supporting climate science, and encourages a dispassionate evidence-based approach to debate and decision making."

Sln3412 07:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... yes, but what was your point? William M. Connolley 07:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing really maybe, I just suppose I wanted to take a stab at writing an opinion on what seems to be the current state of the debate and some of its factors as they related to each other. Maybe I just felt like writing it. But I wanted to make sure you saw it, since I reference you and paraphrase your post. (As well as other ideas and statements here on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere.) So do you think it's fair and accurate (without asking you to edit it or anything like that) in general? I'm not sure what, if anything, I'm going to do with it yet. You are welcome to use it (not that you'd probably want to). Well, heck, it's GFDL anyway I suppose. Sln3412 23:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems fair enough. You should source the last quotes... HoL? Evidence based policy: nice idea... William M. Connolley 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A report a point of contention? No way!!!  :) Yes, done, added source. Now if we can just get everyone to agree to participate in evidence based policy.  !! !!!!

Believe it or not, I'm really in the middle on this issue. Although I get sidetracked. Maybe that's the same as being a skeptic. It seems on many issues if you're not for us, you're against us, (pick any controversial topic like gun politics which is what I was thinking of) where a lack of agreement with one view "proves" total agreement with the other view (which may or may not be reciprocal between "sides"). In fact, I think I just kinda figured this climate change argument thing out, maybe I'll write about that too, but later, some day.

You might take a look at the discussion Stephan and I have over there about Water Vapour (WV), an idea I got from reading the entire HoL report, discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#House_of_Lords (I do actually read all of most everything, or at least the related paragraph or chapter of something, and try to quote from it. The difficult part is quoting some of these complex convoluted statements like Oreskes and Lindzen and others make, it's hard to figure out what they have actually said. Or are trying to, to quote what it was.) Ahem. Anyway, on WV I have some suggestions to make things match a little better on some terminology, so everyone knows what's being discussed. But if I ever do publish the above essay, I'll take out the weasel/badger controversy part! :D It wouldn't be fair. Sln3412 22:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WV is a GHG. But its passive not active. See http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html William M. Connolley 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. Shouldn't that be said when the articles talk about it? My point was that it confuses non-scientists and non-climate scientists (and anyone not paying attention to atmospheric matters?) to call it the same name under different contexts and not explain it in the context, or even talk about it differently in different sections on the same page and try and force the reader to either think like a (climate) scientist, or to try and correlate that all, or whatever we call it. The pages call it feedback/forcings, you called it passive/active, Stephan called amplifier/primary cause, and we could say are temporary/persitent or easily absorbable/non-easily-absorbable, etc. Is the problem that nobody can write it more clearly without getting out of neutrality or going POV out of the consensus view of the statements of the societies or without being as unspecific? It might be a lot clearer and less confusing for readers (and for you, easier to deal with the attempts at editing things to one incorrect POV or another) if everyone knew the difference at all times what subject we're on!  :) Here's the pages/areas that talk about it in major ways:

GW summary: "The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect." (That might confuse people just on its own)

GW atmosphere: "Current studies indicate that radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is the primary cause of global warming. Greenhouse gases are also important in understanding Earth's climate history. According to these studies, the greenhouse effect, which is the warming produced as greenhouse gases trap heat, plays a key role in regulating Earth's temperature." (says greenhouse gas forcing causes GW, no differentiation)

CC GHG: "Current studies indicate that radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is the primary cause of global warming. Greenhouse gases are also important in understanding Earth's climate history. According to these studies, the greenhouse effect, which is the warming produced as greenhouse gases trap heat, plays a key role in regulating Earth's temperature." (Rest of section never mentions WV as one but not one only passive/non-forcing/amplifying only.)

CC Interplay: "Water vapor, methane, and carbon dioxide can also act as significant positive feedbacks, their levels rising in response to a warming trend, thereby accelerating that trend. Water vapor acts strictly as a feedback (excepting small amounts in the stratosphere), unlike the other major greenhouse gases, which can also act as forcings." (never mentions phrase "GHG" or difference)

GHG page: "Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gaseous components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect. Like the glass of a greenhouse, greenhouse gases are transparent only to some wavelengths of light. ... It is the downward part of the longwave radiation emitted by the atmosphere that comprises the "greenhouse effect." The term is something of a misnomer... The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes between 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes between 3-7%. Note that it is not really possible to assert that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. (The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.) " (states the major GHG is WV)

WV page: "Gaseous water represents a small but environmentally significant constituent of the atmosphere. Most of it is contained in the troposphere. Besides accounting for most of Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which warms the planet, gaseous water also condenses to form clouds, which may act to warm or cool, depending on the circumstances. In general terms, atmospheric water strongly influences, and is strongly influenced by weather, and weather is modified by climate." (says it causes the effect, no differentiation)

Sln3412 22:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

I'm trying to run a correlation between the ages of notable participants in the "global-warming debate" and their answer to the following question:

Do you feel that the conclusions of science are of sufficient confidence and strength to justify government action to enforce behavioral changes for the purpose of influencing climate change?

I have your year of birth, but your writings that I've read haven't answered the question to my satisfaction. Would you mind giving me your answer here, on my user page, or you CAN e-mail me? Discussion is welcome, but I will try to infer a "yes" or "no" answer. If you decline to answer, I'd still much prefer a decline to mere silence. --Joe 16:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My position is somewhat nuanced, perhaps... I agree with the IPCC WG I. I believe that the science of how-much-will-t-change is clear for the next 30 years changes, and reasonably clear for 50. What I usually back away from is being too definitive about *impacts* about which I know much less, and to justify govt action you need both the science of cl ch (as I say, fairly clear) plus will-impacts-be-bad (or, is the probability high enough to justify worry they may be bad). I'm inclined to think that they will be more bad than good, and a precautionary approach probably justifies behaviour modification. Though some things should be done first, like not subsidising coal production William M. Connolley 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I think it lands you pretty squarely ATOP the fence, for now. Your reticence regarding impacts is very well-taken (and not always taken by climate-change aficionados who feel their expertise extends into any area in which policy seems suggested by their views, or are simply panicked into setting aside their fears of such impacts). It seems as regards government action, you prefer less of it before enacting more of it, a course I heartily concur with, if I may.

Thanks Bill. I will, with your permission, repost this reply on the Usenet group alt.global-warming. I had no idea that you were sitting atop the fence in the GW debate, from your posts I thought you were a GW left-winger. Your friend, Ray Lopez <raylopez99@yahoo.com>

I'm considering changing my question to something like, "Do you consider the Kyoto (mandatory) Protocols to be justified?" That question is subsumed within the one I placed to you, but I think the Kyoto version is easier to answer, and may give me fully as meaningful a result.--Joe 01:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Mihai Radulescu

At 19:56, 14 August 2006 William M. Connolley deleted the article Mihai Radulescu with the comment: foreign

When you encounter a non-Enlish article in the English wikipedia, you shouldn't speedily delete it. Instead, add the {{notenglish}} tag, and add the page to Misplaced Pages:Pages_needing_translation_into_English.

In this case, the page was later recreated by another editor, and the text turned out to be a copyvio from http://www.literaturasidetentie.ro/biografie.php I replaced that text with a stub. By the way, as you might guess from the ".ro" in the domain, the text was in Romanian. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it cos the tag said: This page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: it is a foreign language article that exists on another Wikimedia project (CSD A2). If there is something wrong with that tag, I suggest you need to go and get it revised William M. Connolley 09:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and 3RR

Hello admin. Technajunky keeps deleting sources and facts from the article Timur (in this case, it is a quote from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, which is one of the most reliable and authoritative sources in regard of Islamic history). Besides that, he has violated the 3RR. Please revert his changes and maybe block the article for a while. Thanks. Tājik 18:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: here is another well-respected source disproving his claim: "Timur" in The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2005, Columbia University Press)Tājik 18:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:3RR William M. Connolley 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Deuterium is not done

This diff is further illustration that he's just hoping to find an admin new enough to go ahead and block me on his now twice reviewed 3RR report against me. I'm not going to edit anymore on the 3RR page (as I said I wouldn't) relative to this case but if you could take some action against this editor now it would be apprecaited. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And here's that same report filed again. Seriously this editor didn't get the message from the block given to him (and myself unfortunately). (→Netscott) 23:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just getting stranger and stranger. (→Netscott) 00:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now William M. Connolley 08:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Indeed this editor has been dealt with (thankfully). I learned a valuable lesson in this whole experience. In the future I will properly label similarly natured edits as the ones I was performing on the 3RR noticeboard yesterday as "rvv" per the "Changing other people's comments" part of Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. You might respond to User:Bishonen's enquiry on the Deuterium ANI threads. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 10:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be a bit more cautious than that. Look at the 3RR rules: only *blatant vandalism* is immune William M. Connolley 10:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. You'd not consider a regular editor deleting the reviewed status on a 3RR report as "blatant vandalism"? I realize that this is a bit Wikilawyerly but WP:3RR#Reverting_vandalism refers to simple vandalism with a link to types of vandalism where "Changing people's comments" is listed. Was I truly wrong in my restoring of User:Robdurbar's status comment? (→Netscott) 11:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not obvious, which is why its best not to risk it. To me, "blatant vandalism" means inserting foo-bar-wibble into articles. There was nothing wrong with restoring Robs comment *once*; after that it would have been far better to contact him; or disucss it on 3RR talk William M. Connolley 11:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to 3RR talk? Now it's just noticeboard talk. When I encountered difficulties I documented what was occurring on ANI. Unfortunately no one responded in a timely fashion. From your language I'm gathering that you essentially agree that my reverts were genuinely to revert vandalism. (→Netscott) 11:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said you were right to revert once. I said it wasn't obvious. William M. Connolley 11:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't there used to be a 3RR talk page? I realize you said it wasn't obvious... which means that while it was vandalism I was reverting... it wasn't obvious. No? (→Netscott) 11:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Somehting weird happened to the 3RR talk. I've restored it William M. Connolley 12:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, William. As Netscott says, I did enquire, a couple of times, on the Deuterium threads on ANI yesterday about your reasons for blocking him for 12 hours. I certainly didn't assume you would reply--we all have a perfect right to be off line or busy--but since several people there seemed to be agreeing with your action I hoped somebody would point me to the part I felt I must be missing--the reason Netscott was thought to merit a block. Nobody did, though. If you have any time to spare today, I still wish you would explain it. Focusing on the irony of revert warring on the WP:3RR page of all places is more of a joke, surely? It's the rationale for the reverts that matters, but I know I don't have to tell you that. To my eyes Netscott was reverting obvious, glaring vandalism--the deceptive change of other users' posts over their sigs--the whole time, and so the 12-hour block of Netscott looks unfair to me. Your not shortening it when he promised to not edit the page again surprised me too. Please believe that I ask in good faith: is there something here I'm not seeing? My feeling is that you're more experienced in this field than I am (I try to give 3RR vios a wide berth unless they're forced on my attention), and I admire your work and your good judgment altogether, so I'm very willing to be instructed. Best, Bishonen | talk 13:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

To take the easy bit first, I was offline till nearly the end of the block, and didn't feel it was worth shortening thereafter. I didn't see the ANI thread - somehow (Natalina) the 3RR talk page got redir'd to it. In future the discussion should be on the t:3RR. I do feel that the entire edit war was silly, and should have been a discussion on talk instead. Now, the difficult bit: was Netscott reverting blatant vandalism? That depends on your eye: it was blatant to you, and Ns, but not to me. So I tend to take a rather strict line on this for 3RR (and its on User:William M. Connolley/3RR, though I don't know if anyone reads that): its only blatant and hence immune if its easy for anyone to tell its blatant William M. Connolley 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it, William. I understand your argument, it makes good strict-3RR sense, but it also kind of illustrates why I like to give 3RR vios a wide berth. I do block for 3RR sometimes, but I'd rather have blocked Deuterium for forging other users' comments in this case, as being the more repugnant offense, against the bigger principle. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC).

Its quite possible that I could have checked a bit more carefully William M. Connolley 10:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Needles

Thank you for sorting the page moves etc out earlier today. Fiddle Faddle 20:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor's RfAr

Just a heads up to let you know that Ed's RfAr is up. If you it would be useful to add anything, please do so. JoshuaZ 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Article help

Hey there, I'm looking for another editor on the δO page. Since its creation I have been the only editor. Perhaps you could help out? I was thinking adding something about how to calculate them using the Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water , how δO is measured, fractination, use in measuring precipitation, the Rutherford hypothesis, and more. — (talk)

Not sure how much use I'll be, but I'll look William M. Connolley 19:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about a 3RR warning

Greeting William M. Connolley, as you're a bit of a resident expert on matters concering WP:3RR I was wondering if the following warning is in accord with policy?

As you're reverting a lot at Duckgull , I want to make sure you've been told about the 3RR rule. Any undoing of another editor's work, in whole or in part, whether involving the same material or different material each time, is a revert; and only three of those are allowed in 24 hours. Please review WP:3RR carefully.

The part I'm wondering about is the "or different material each time". Now I know that editors are not to engage in edit warring but if one editor is making good faith efforts to improve an article and is not specifically reverting to a previous version that they wrote then how would that be considered a revert?

Example:

Original text: The Duckgull is a cross between a seagull and a duck.

• First version by editor 1: According to Amy B. Guous the Duckgull is a cross between a seagull and a duck. (subsequently this gets reverted by editor 2 back to the original text = RV1)
• Second version by editor 1: The Duckgull has been reported in the journal Nature to be a cross between a seagull and a duck. (reverted again by editor 3 = RV2)
• Third version by editor 1: The journal Nature reported Amy B. Gous as having said the Duckgull to be a cross between a seagull and a duck. (reverted again by editor 2 = RV3)
• Fouth version by editor 1: Amy B. Gous claimed in the journal Nature that the Duckgull was a cross between a seagull and a duck.

In this instance has editor 1 violated 3RR? Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, because editor 1's first edit was an edit, not a revert. It added new material and no work of a previous editor was undone. SlimVirgin 18:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

William M. Connolley, the answer to your question here will be rather pertinent as I'm considering filing an RfC over what I percieve to have been gaming of the 3RR rules to have me blocked. Thanks. (→Netscott) 18:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If need be lets say that the pattern continued and editor 1 wrote a fifth version of the text he wanted entered.... 3RR at that point? (→Netscott) 18:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if editor 1 undid another editor's work again, s/he'd be up to four reverts, and it would be a 3RR violation. SlimVirgin 20:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Who considers a revert "work" ? (→Netscott) 22:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what the policy says: WP:3RR. SlimVirgin 22:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It says "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting." SlimVirgin 22:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Editor 1 was the only editor doing any work. The other editors are not doing work they are merely reverting to an earlier version. (→Netscott) 22:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That is their work. The versions they revert to are their versions. Editor 1 keeps undoing that. Editor 1 is undoing their work (their reverts). SlimVirgin 23:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding content does not equal undoing work the only editors undoing anyone's work are the two who are reverting editor 1's good faith edits. But I think you and I should just wait for William M. Connolley to review this discussion and add his experienced view. (→Netscott) 23:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been enforcing 3RR for 18 months and I can assure you that my interpretation is correct. Editor 1 may have been adding something inaccurate or inappropriate. Just because an editor removes something and returns it to the status quo ante doesn't mean they haven't made a contribution. It's precisely to avoid arguments like this that 3RR is enforced independent of the merits of the content (apart from simple vandalism, libel, and reverting banned users). Any undoing of another editor's work is a revert. Even if you disagree with the policy, please do take it on board. You've been blocked for 3RR several times and it'll keep on happening if you operate with a view of the policy not shared by admins. SlimVirgin 00:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been off on hols... so this may be rather late. Anyway, my interpretation is closer to SV's than N's. Repeatedly adding essentially the same thing, but using different words or order or adding more or less detail would probably count as a revert. However, it rarely occurs. William M. Connolley 14:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Aviation and climate change

Hello. I have created a new page, Aviation and climate change. I'd be grateful for additional review and comment. As a member of the climate change wikiproject I was hoping you may be able to help. tks. Normalmouth 22:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Will look William M. Connolley 19:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Global warming

Hi, I understand you are one of the largest contributers to Global warming. We are having a small situation. I came onto the article and started citing articles using this format to replace the current one as you can see here . This is an example of the method I have been using to cite the sources:

Personally I felt it was more of a scientific method for citing sources compared to the bracket method () but then I read the discussion page (just FYI I just started editing the article so I wasn't totally aware of the "drama" that had been ensuing over the citation style. I eventually posted on the talk page and found out about everything and we have been discussing what to do. We could really appriciate your input on the subject since you have really contributed the most to the article. You can find the discussion here SirGrant 00:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

possible deletion of "consensus science" page

Sorry for the late notice, but I have recently nominated the "consensus science" page for deletion. For my arguments on this, please see that article's discussion page and its deletion page. Deletion policy says that I should tell frequent contributors to the page about the proposed deletion, and I only just saw this today.

Sorry for any inconvenience. Dicksonlaprade 16:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Script

I've removed pop-ups, which got accidently copied in there. Under the "message" tab, there should be a 3RR warning. The tabs on the AN/3RR are still there too. Note that if the dropdowns appear to be extremely wide, then that means you didn't add this to your css file.Voice-of-All 17:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Pressing "message" doesn't do anything for me (it appears as {{message}}, if that matters) William M. Connolley 18:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you do not have the css script for dropdowns to work, I've added it. Please clear your cache for it work.Voice-of-All 01:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to work - thanks William M. Connolley 08:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence

William Connolley, just a thanks for you very quick response to my complaint about the 3RR violation going on at CSICOP. Much appreciated. Askolnick 19:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Paradoxtom at J4J

I noticed you blocked him earlier. He just reverted the article again after getting off his block (twice actually, he rv his own rv). I think, but am not sure, that this makes him (once again) in violation of 3RR. This user continues to avoid constructive discussion on the talk page. - Abscissa 19:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think so too, so I've given him 24h this time William M. Connolley 19:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The block just expired and . JoshuaZ 20:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

and --Mantanmoreland 20:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

and , which is vandalism.--Mantanmoreland 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

48h now... William M. Connolley 20:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Right after his 3 hour 3RR block expired...

...he reverted again. . Nandesuka 19:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Italian ISP

Hi William--I don't know if you are watching ANI or not, but in response to your question on Stirling's talk page, it's here-- 87.19.140.175 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). I confess I'm as confused as some of the others, but I got involved in this by blocking some of Stirling's harassers. I'm not sure if it's one person or more, at this point. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have been looking at ANI William M. Connolley 15:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre

William, my suggestion for the Srebrenica massacre article is that the editors either try to find a compromise or, if some of the editors are not willing to do this, that they agree to disagree and accept the POV tag. I can't see how adding back a POV tag can equate to an edit of an article or be controversial.Osli73 22:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm not going to get drawn into the content here, other than to say that tags-are-text: you can be blocked under 3RR for adding/removing them. I've been involved in disputes myself as to whether a POV tag is needed or not William M. Connolley 22:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

William, OK, if you say that POV tags are text I will stop adding/removing them. However, it seems a bit unfair to say that editors who are clearly not willing to compromise or even accept that there is a POV dispute should be allowed to stop other editors from adding a POV tag. I can appreciate that you may not want to get drawn into the content of the article. Instead, could you perhaps suggest another admin who might get engaged in the Srebrenica massacre article since it is a very charged and, in my opinion, politicized, article which deserves to either be rewritten or have a POV tag added to it. Regards, Osli73 23:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

My block

Please note that the reverts were not done within 24 hours. BhaiSaab 00:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings William M. Connolley. Regarding the BhaiSaab's block, if it has been within 25 hours, then it means that the user does follows the rules. The purpose of this policy is to prevent edit warring, it is NOT punitive. Furthermore, the length of the block :"48 Hours" is strange? I think it is normally 24 hours. --Reza1 01:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

See B's talk page - I got the timestamps wrong William M. Connolley 08:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note though, repeatedly going right up to the 3RR threshold then and starting again after the first 24 hrs has passed is called gaming the system, itself a blockable offense. FeloniousMonk 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Got a problem user on Freemasonry

User:Cantikadam has been disrupting the Talk:Freemasonry page. I have reverted his additions twice as soapboxing (here and here) and pointed this out to him on his talk page. His answer here pretty much confirms his intent to be disruptive because of his personal (and misplaced) beliefs. He's also readding the comments but I don't know whether this qualifies as AIV or a content issue. Any ideas? MSJapan 15:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael Mann (scientist) and POV tag

As you know, there is currently a dispute as to whether the Michael Mann (scientist) should have an external link to www.climateaudit.org (a link which has been there for almost a year). Not only have you removed the link, you have also removed the POV tag on the article. The POV tag should remain until the dispute is resolved and its removal amounts to vandalism. 00:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.74.238 (talk • contribs)

Please stop talking nonsense. its removal amounts to vandalism - if you believe that, report me for vandalism, and you'll get laughed at. Note that you appear to be adding back in both the inappropriate link *and* the POV tag, although the ostensible reason for the tag is the absence of the link... William M. Connolley 08:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to weigh in on the climateaudit dispute (if there really is such a dispute - the note above seems to be anonymous). As you (a realclimate blogger and earth scientist) surely know, climateaudit is now a work of years' standing with contributions from hundreds of people (including some highly qualified people) and a vast amount of material, ALL on the subject of Mann's very influential work. Even I published an opinion piece on Mann's work on www.mises.org in 2005, when I was introduced to the subject by a Wall Street Journal article (not among the citations of the article on Mann). In the course of writing this piece, I subjected climateaudit (and realclimate, and other sources) to as close scrutiny as I (see my User profile) could given my background. Work by the climateaudit people has since been confirmed by the Wegner report, again some very-difficult-to-refute criticisms, and serious ones.

Errrmm... have I read this somewhere else and why are you repeating it? Wegner reads more like a parrotting of M&M than independent work... hold on, I've said this before... William M. Connolley 08:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You read something very much like it on the Talk page for Michael Mann (scientist), where I put it AFTER having put it here (where I first noted the comment I was replying to), in order to expose it to the whole audience for THAT page. At the time, I was not as aware as I am now of how closely you are monitoring that page, nor did I know whether the comment (by unsigned) I was responding to appeared there. Pardon my not having deleted it here, and my having "copied" you, as it were, on the matter.Joe 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether the "hockey stick" has since been "confirmed" by von Storch or others is irrelevant to issues revolving around the quality of Mann's work. If he got the right results by doing the wrong things, this should be noted in Mann's article. A link to climateaudit is essential to balance in this article, and/or a link to the Wegman report, which is provided on the Web site of Cong. Barton's subcommittee.--Joe 02:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If he got the right results by doing the wrong things, this should be noted in Mann's article - errr, but he didn't, so thats OK then William M. Connolley 08:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean, he didn't get the right results? Well, that would not make it OK. Wegman's work closely replicated M&M's because M&M was right, at least within the statistical matters they addressed. Arriving at the same (correct) results is no more "parroting" than von Storch's confirming the hockey stick is. That, or maybe it is as much. Possibly you perceive parroting according to which side of the discussion confirmation arises on.Joe 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not clear that Wegman is independent of M&M - what W did is not open for inspection; he is refusing to answer questions about it William M. Connolley 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - My Mistake

The Michael Mann article does contain (and apparently long has contained) a link to the Wegman report, as Reference 15. While I did read the article (as you suggested I might not have), I obviously did not follow all the numbered links (I followed the one of/to Wegman, of course).

Separately, I've been following a lot of other links, and wound up in a quotation of you on Tim Lambert's site in which you made very specific and testable (THANK YOU! - why do Mann's defenders do this so seldom, and so poorly?) criticisms of the work of Mann's critics (M&M). I am following these criticisms, not because I see any possibility of changing my opinion of Mann's work as artful bunkum, but because I feel audits should be audited, too (and so on, ad infinitum), and want to see how much faith, if any, one can put in M&M's work. Proving them wrong doesn't prove Mann right in any way, but ultimately, every one of my conclusions and predilections is, and must always remain, tentative, so there is no conclusion that I can rule out from following this path.

If you have any comments/guidance for me in this inquiry, I'd like to invite you to favor me with an e-mail (or, of course, edit my Talk page if you prefer). Joe 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Only that the issue is not a simple one. Following through all the stats will take you a while and a lot of effort. Good luck William M. Connolley 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

your comment

Re this - because apparently you have to delete talk pages separately now... Guettarda 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah sorry - what I mean was, why did the redirect page ever exist? The answer I presume is some Ed-ish of page moves but I can't untangle what happened :-) William M. Connolley 20:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was someone named Karbinski (talk · contribs) Guettarda 22:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So it was... apologies to Ed then William M. Connolley 08:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A thanks

I just wanted to thank you for keeping a cool head thus far on Talk:Global warming. We need more people who act calmly in the face of these rather...dubious detractors. Thank you! Happy editing. :) —AySz88\^-^ 16:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I can cope. You should have been there in the old days... William M. Connolley 17:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh...the good old days ;) Guettarda 02:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If you miss, them, I can try to get Ed, Poodleboy, TheOutHouseMouse, Silverback, SEWilco, and Lumidek to join us all at the same time. I thing JonGwynne is gone for good, but I could do an impersonation ;-) (Ooops..just noticed that GW had vanished from my watchlist somehow. It did seem unnaturally quite). --Stephan Schulz 08:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You forgot Cortonin... William M. Connolley 08:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, how could you forget Cortonin? Without her (him?) there wouldn't have been the first arbcomm case. Guettarda 19:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Those were fun times. Speaking of the departed JonGwynne, if you check out An Inconvenient Truth and its talk you may find a clone :-) SpinyNorman even has the same penchant for fast cars. Or am I just dreaming. Vsmith 12:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually JG's heyday was before I got involved (I think I actually got involved after his first ban). I actually never knew anything of him outside of the GW and consensus science pages. Would be interesting to compare their writing styles, etc. Guettarda 19:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

SN is too polite to be JG William M. Connolley 19:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

...OTOH he is POV pushing at An Inconvenient Truth :-( William M. Connolley 10:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comair Flight 5191

Hi, I am requesting that you come to the Comair Flight 5191 and offer some advice on how we can overcome an ongoing content dispute. Here are 2 links that spotlight my position; http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Comair_Flight_5191#Deletions_and_revisions http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Comair_Flight_5191#Let.27s_call_for_an_admin

Here is an excerpt from link 2;

Why don't we call for an admin to come in and clear things up for us? They can act as an informal mediator. The way I see it there are 5 (yeah five) policies or guidelines, that are the bones of contention.

• Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information
• Misplaced Pages:No original research
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
• Misplaced Pages:Verifiability
• Wikinews:What Wikinews is

My question is; are the above stated reasons valid ones for aggressively deleting cited statements from the article? I believe that wikirules have been misapplied to keep people from adding to the article and that there has been a whitewash of most statements that call attention to passengers deaths or any possible human error or fallibility, reported in the news media. I believe we can all work together to add content to the page, but the guidelines to what is permissible need to be explained by someone who knows. Which brings me here.... Thanks for any help you can give. Mytwocents 17:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Done William M. Connolley 21:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

While you are at it...

William, I caught that you had been asked to mediate on the Comair Flight 5191 article. We'll see if that ends up being necessary, but in the meantime, could you please take a brief look at the mini-controversy brewing over at Keystroke logging? Specifically, one user feels very strongly about adding (commercial) links to example keystroke loggers, and while I see his point, I think it's a slippery slope. Other uses feel very strongly about blanking all commercial links. Initially it looked like I had had succeeded in getting the involved parties to the Talk page to hash it out there, but they have since decided they hate each other and are continuing a low-level revert war (too infrequent to violate 3RR, but annoying nonetheless).

Seems like a pretty minor issue to be getting admins involved, but normal consensus-building tactics (e.g. inviting people to the Talk page) seem to have failed for me here. Can you just take a quick look (just a glance at the article history will show you what I'm talking about) and recommend a course of action? I would appreciate it! :) --Jaysweet 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to stick to one at a time William M. Connolley 07:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha

William, how can you block CCSon, if he created the Alpha Phi Alpha page? In addition, why are you going to block me if I am trying to PREVENT a person is clearly vandalizing pages, harrassing users, AND changing information (on a FEATURED article)? Bearly541 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Errr... I didn't. And if you break 3RR, I'll block you. Of course William M. Connolley 07:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

3rr Report

how is it a waste? Even if no action is taken, a documentation of his reversions is what i'm seeking. When the article is reviewed or user actions i want a whole story presented. NinjaNubian 21:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. 3RR blocks are to prevent present trouble not to document the past. Please get over this and on with happy editing William M. Connolley 21:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

has trouble not occurred multiple times? this Ccson has even gone so far as to recruit additional individuals to make it seem as if ninjanubian acting against a large group. As can be seen here. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MrDarcy

205.188.116.200 01:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

great point. Mykungfu 08:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note NinjaNubian is now using Mykungfu as an additional ID. The Alpha Phi Alpha discussion page notes that changing ID's is this person's MO. Can you help me as far as how I report, etc, without breaking wikiquette? Robotam 13:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Since NN is being perfectly open about it, I can't see any problem. You may, if you wish, note this on the APA talk page, if it isn't obvious already William M. Connolley 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

William, thank you for your insight on the Alpha Phi Alpha entry (and helping us new wikis in general). working within the valid wiki system is the best and only way to deal with someone vandalizing a page even if they are "gaming the system" via multiple ids (ninjanubian, mykungfu, etc). Robotam 13:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

NN won't be used anymore simply b/c i lost the password i left a note on the use page of both NN and MKF. It's not gaming the system it's a simple switch. thanks Mykungfu 19:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

NN is now using Mykungfu and various anonymous IP to avoid 3RR. Robotam 20:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

R - you seem to have somewhat lost the plot. As far as I can tell, NN has swapped to MKF and been perfectly open about it. Using anon socks is another matter, but you'll need evidence for that William M. Connolley 21:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight and help. -Robotam 11:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN3

• The few times that I've dabbled in WP:ANI/3RR, I've tried to be fair, but I universally get hit with a barrage of malcontents on my talk page and others that send me threatening e-mails. I don't know why you continue to take care of this for us, but thank you for doing so, as I know that I wouldn't be able to last more than a day at it. Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 14:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :-) William M. Connolley 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice

I am impressed by your page on refuting Mann et al.'s hockeystick. Also, I noted that not as many scientists who I think should, will actually point out why, almost an icon, does not stand up to test all that well. They just tend to "ignore" it. Here is graph also injecting random simulated data into Mann et al.'s method, with the red being simulated, and blue being actual proxy data. — (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Not quite sure what your point is. That things blur out with noise? nb the ECHO-G probably has excess solar forcing William M. Connolley 15:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Shoushetzi is evading his/her block

See 65.113.71.188 (talk · contribs). Can you do something about it? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 16:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Done; will semi if continues William M. Connolley 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. —Khoikhoi 20:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And again... :( —Khoikhoi 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your block on LifeEnemy

The block you have imposed on LifeEnemy should never have been made. His reversions did not constitute a violation of the 3RR. Please see the following for the exception that you asked for: Exception noted in policy. Please remove this block immediately. Markovich292 22:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your function on wiki seems to be backing up LE. You look like a sock William M. Connolley 07:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought about ignoring this, but I think it would be better for wikipedia if I say something. First, I'm not a sockpuppet, and you should really look more into the details before you make that assessment on anybody. I am hopeful that you haven't actually sized up a situation quickly like that and then made an improper block. I also suggest that you re-familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy. Even if you think you are intimately familiar with a policy when it is brought up in a dispute, you should still look at anyway just to make sure you are acting within its bounds when you use your admin rights. Markovich292 05:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Mykungfu/NinjaNubian

Mykungfu has now simply gone back to vandalizing and reverts the Alpha Phi Alpha page he was warned about using NinjaNubian. Robotam 14:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for last post. still learning wiki ett. -Robotam 14:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

Seems only fair, as you were the one who recently blocked me (3RR on An Inconvenient Truth).

But seriously: this is a small, but very annoying matter, peripherally related to the above. SpinyNorman has now taken to harassing me; for instance, around the time of the 3RR brouhaha, he all of a sudden develops an interest in a topic I'd been editing, Dorothy Parker. What a coincidence ... So now, he's reverting perfectly legitimate edits of mine, and—get this—calling them "vandalism" (like this one. I love it! He gets to ding me and come off as if he's fighting "vandalism" in one swell foop.

Maybe you could "have a word", as they say. Starting to bug me. Thanks. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to complain to him about wikistalking. If it persists, then either get back to me, or better WP:ANI William M. Connolley 07:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My "exception"

I left a response on my talk page as to why I was not violating 3RR, if you care to know. --LifeEnemy 02:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes yes, I think you need to get over this and stick to 3RR in future, or better still ] William M. Connolley 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was only leaving a comment since you seemed interested to know why. I don't really care much anymore (although it still wasn't right). --LifeEnemy 04:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

SpinyNorman

I hope you don't mind that I re-blocked this guy for a week - I had made the decision, which edit conflicted with yours. He has had a number of 3RR blocks - including one of 48 hours - and has returned to break teh 3RR again. Hopefully, a week long ban will actually be a real inconvenience that persuades him to stop breakin the rule. --Robdurbar 08:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. He's also been a bit disruptive recently (see above...) William M. Connolley 08:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

He has also been evading blocks with sockpuppets. Jayjg 20:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

THanks. I've added a sock notice to SN's page, since that seems to be fairly conclusive evidence William M. Connolley 21:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

oops...

"Who left Peiser in there?" That would be me! Sorry, long day. Thanks for catching it. (How did I miss that!?) Brusegadi 18:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Don't Bite (3RR Report)

I tried to get this 3RR posted but got called away from the computer... I am still trying to figure out how to get certain aspects understood. If your opinion with that article being about some cartoon character (Your words) than where do we draw the line? When the JFK Wiki gets vandalized do we say its only some dead president with conspiracy theorists... Apparently you cannot be bothered by helping those that do not understand either than... Thanks for your time, I will not let actions of one Admin discourage my attempts to make Misplaced Pages better... Rob110178 23:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't take it too hard, you aren't close to winning the prize for worst formatted report William M. Connolley 08:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Impressively badly formatted. If you can't be bothered to work out how to do diffs, I can't be bothered to check your report out, and anyway its only some cartoon character that should probably be VFD'd anyway :-) William M. Connolley 21:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

..for your assistence. I hope that Afrika paprika will go to the talk pages after his 4th block and discuss this content dispute, so that peace and harmony would be restored. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ozone page

as you may have seen a an anonymous editor Special:Contributions/71.198.29.122 is putting a load of nonsense on the ozone page. I have done a section by section rebuttal on the talk page but I'd appreciate any extra eyes on this for a while. It seems to be related to some air quality proposed legislation in California. I will be thinking about sorting out the article structure a bit as well at the weekend. Oh and thanks for doing the revert I meant to do last week.--NHSavage 19:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed; you seem to be doing fine William M. Connolley 20:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

but! but!

The AOL ip that keeps putting up the 3rr report isnt Mykungfu! Its just some other AOL ip that is looking out for him, and when it realizes he's blocked it posts stuff for him! Oh and sometimes posts stuff and signs it as Mykungfu, but its not him! ;) Syrthiss 16:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I admit I didn't check. I dunno what to do... since we can't block AOL perhaps blocking MKF is for the best, might teach the anon not to be so "helpful". But unblock if you think its right William M. Connolley 16:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you missed my wink. I don't know what to do about it either, other than what I've done in relation to it - protecting the pages he was placing sock notices on. At the least, having MKF's account blocked means he has to resort to posting either as anon or with another account. Syrthiss 16:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oooooooooppppssss yes I see the wink now, and shouldn't really have needed it anyway ;-). Thanks William M. Connolley 17:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW - I've now had to semiprotect Robotam's talk page (another target of MKF) after "that AOL ip" put racist comments on it. Syrthiss 17:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

what racist comments? were racial terms used? 152.163.101.8 01:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, yet another AOL IP who isn't Mykungfu (ha, ha) posted the same 3RR report with the same text: Thanks for your help, BTW. As best as I can tell, this is because I voted to delete an article Mykungfu either created or was heavily involved with. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Rm again... William M. Connolley 10:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And it's back again: Thanks for your vigilance on this. I'm assuming it would be inappropriate for me to delete them myself, correct? | Mr. Darcy talk 17:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

68.90.226.209 is evading his block

Please see 68.92.206.138 (talk · contribs)...should the block be extended? —Khoikhoi 18:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the page. Ciao! —Khoikhoi 19:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A word of advice?

Hello. You seem pretty busy with Wiki's workings, but if you've got a moment I'd like to ask for a tad of input/advice on something. A few of us are in mediation over a page-move turned vinegar generally because of a lack of factual argument, and the mediation page itself has become the same - partly because our dear moderator, after hardly being present at all, seems to have gone AWOL. We've pretty well gone the rounds of fact, and consensus this past week has turned in favour of fact, but I'm not really sure where to go from here. I've set up a sort of vote so we can conclude this affair, but let's just say we've pretty well done it on our own without any admin (who aren't part of the debate) intervention at all. If you have the time, could you look things over and give some advice on where to go from here? You can find the great debate here. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 18:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a "helpful" comment to the talk page, but no more I'm afraid William M. Connolley 19:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't asking you to take sides in anything at all - I was asking for advice on how to conclude this, something made difficult by the "missing mediator". Should we look for another mediator? Should we have a vote? This was more the line of my questioning. Sorry if I wasn't clear. But thanks all the same for your input. THEPROMENADER 19:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it might have been, but I couldn't really decide what to advise. I would say, try to get a mediator to help - you don't need an admin - so if GtoG isn't responding to talk/email, post a note on the MedCabal page perhaps William M. Connolley 19:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll leave it for tonight, but if there's no word tomorrow, it's off to the MedCabal. I do agree with you on the out-of-proportion'd-ness of the whole debate, but if you knew how clear the question was I'm sure you'd think it was even sillier. Things are pretty black and white here, not like chez vous with your parishes and ceremonial counties and "Greater London == London"... that sort of debate I could never even think to get into : ) Thanks for your word. THEPROMENADER 19:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite the edit summary, this revert is in reality an edit. In my opinion it's sort of abused to apply 3RR on something like that. Miskin 23:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Dozy admins

Dear Conolley fine to see you woken up,this is the first time I was blocked for 3RR violation which i did commit for the first time for 4 edits spread over two days.I have been blocked twice earlier for the same reason (though unblocked shortly on detection) when I had not even violated 3RR.But you are wrong to say that changes were not discussed.Infact I had left warning on Hkelkar (now known among all wikipedians for bogus reporting) talk page,care to know why he was still repeating the same act??? and why sd his rv not be treated as vandalism, and how does rv vandalism counts in 3RR.Happy adminship,just carry on your services are really indespensable . Ikon |no-blast 11:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this count as a personal attack?I'd like to meet the people who regard my reports as bogus.Hkelkar 12:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, Holywrrior/Ikonoblast has resumed edit-warring on votebank. I revert his edits largely because his citations have failed verification, and his tags are in the wrong place. He has responded with bogus vandalism tags in my talk page, which,I believe, is a personal attack in on itself (since this is clearly a content dispute and not vandalism). Might also want to talk to User:Gamesmasterg9, another contributor who has the same issues with ikonoblast regarding his constant bickering, edit-warring, and personal attacks and consistent incivility despite repeated blocks and warnings from several admins.

Here is the diff of the content dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Votebank&diff=77886409&oldid=77550865

Here is the link to the bogus reference of ikonoblast that mentions nothing about the subject of the citation: (that of the CPIM allegedly "keeping away from votebank politics") http://www.himalmag.com/2004/may/commentary_4.htm

Please judge for yourself who is the troll.

HIs bogus vandalism tag on my talk page is below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AHkelkar&diff=77890385&oldid=77889472

It would be nice if an objective admin such as yourself could offer a perspective regarding this matter. I would also welcome mediation/informal arbitration by yourself regarding this. And please to also involve the other valuable contributor User:Gamesmasterg9.

Thanks for your attention and have a nice day.

Hkelkar 12:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so: (1) please stop edit warring (both of you); (2) please stop labelling each others edits as vandalism; this is a content dispute; (3) please stop the vandalsim warnings, which are abusive. Since Ikon was validly blocked for 3RR, now known among all wikipedians for bogus reporting is obvious nonsense and is getting close to a personal attack William M. Connolley 15:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify 1)You are right if you mean (Gamesmasterg and Hkelkar) by both of you.I am not the one who would indulge in edit warring.

2)You are wrong in assuming that now known among all wikipedians for bogus reporting--- as nonsense for better view ask the admins who believed his reoprts earlier like JoshuaZ (He presented diffs of many days to make an impression of 3RR violation.2] He does it again this time it was EL_c who was at least quick to detect the gaming part by Hkelkar.Not only this this man has presented many bogus cases of NPA .Many times I was the target which bore no result. 3)perhaps you still have not understood why I termed his acts as vandalism.I hope you are aware removing sources for no reason is termed vandalism.Is it nonesense??? Thanx. Ikon |no-blast 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

When the sources are bogus (failed verification) then it's an act of dishonesty on the part of the editor to cite them and my solemn duty as a wikipedian and an academic with scholarly integrity to correct the error. For details plz see talk page of Talk:Votebank.Hkelkar 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Yet another poorly formed report"?

Comments like that are not conducive to making editors even want to bother reporting 3RR and the like; if you people could make a less convulated form for reporting violations instead of making snide comments everybody would be further ahead. I believe that you owe me an apology. Duke53 | 00:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an issue that interests us both. I inadvertantly made a 4th edit and Duke53's incomplete complaint left me totally confused. For the first half hour I thought he was mistaken and I was stuck re-reading the 3RR page and trying to figure out where the violation took place. As far as I can tell it was my self-monitoring that led to the identification of teh 3RR violation, not his. I think a self-report of a 3RR violation deserves leniancy.Mrdthree 04:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if people can be bothered to fill in the report properly, its up to the admins to decide whether to bother investigate it. Mrdthree may have got a slightly bum deal out of this William M. Connolley 08:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

He broke the friggin' rule, that isn't the issue here. The issue is your rudeness and the confusing 3RR report form. The form is complicated and not all self-explanatory. It's a PITA to fill out and then having an 'admin' be rude just makes for a frustrating experience. If being an 'admin' is so bothersome then just give up your power (but we both know you won't do that). My filling out the confusing form incorrectly doesn't change the fact that he broke the rule. Duke53 | 13:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop whinging William M. Connolley 13:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Very helpful. You exemplify one of the areas where Misplaced Pages just sucks and why it gets a bad name. Duke53 | 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC) GTAFFAAGG,A p.s. Did he break the rule?  :) Duke53 | 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is worth continuing. But on the assumption that it is: if you think the 3RR form is confusing (despite the plethora of worked examples) then the place to discuss that, and suggest improvements, is the talk page of the 3RR page. As to this particular report... since I actually acted on it despite its poor formatting, I really don't see what you're complaining about William M. Connolley 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove legitimate messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of legitimate communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. Thanks. Duke53 | 12:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Climate change

Hello, article fits into Category:Human extinction please leave. MapleTree 01:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why. Cl Ch isn't going to cause human extinction William M. Connolley 08:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you have a fan

Of course I would never not AGF and think that the motivation behind this was that you had blocked MarkThomas for a 3RRvio. I'm sure that his sudden interest in the William M. Connolley article is based on his interest in BAS staff ;)

Interesting character. Guettarda 12:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed... it seems to have ended (?) happily, and of course we all know that MTs motives were good, if misguided... thanks William M. Connolley 19:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dbiv nonexistent 3RR

Regarding Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox, Justif is a clear role account or sockpuppet (given its knowledge of things which happened back in May) and probably shouldn't be treated as a good faith editor. Similar edits were reverted by another sysop earlier in the month . A better solution here might be to protect the article; just blocking both editors won't bring Justif to the table. Mackensen (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Mackensen here. --Irishpunktom\ 19:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to protect... that would stop you improving it William M. Connolley 19:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we can agree here that the primary problem is that Justif is blindly reverting. I see Dbiv trying to compromise instead of just reverting, which is helpful. Unless someone raises a major objection I'm going to unblock him. Mackensen (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

William M. Connolley, it seems you have included Dbivs attempt at compromise as a revert. Don't you think thats a bit unfair? --Irishpunktom\ 19:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I see something labelled as "compromise" but looking at it, it appears substantially the same as all the other edits. This isn't even marginal. Did you look at the actual edit? William M. Connolley 19:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we all did. Did you read the talk page? Mackensen (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but I have now. It makes no difference. This is the difference beween a revert, sigh and a Compromise. They are substantially the same. Certainly the "compromise" falls under 3RR. If you've got some good reason for exempting Dbiv from 3RR, then I don't know what it is: if Dbiv has reached his 3R, he should be calling in... you; IPT; whoever; to continue the war; or asking for the sock to be blocked; not just reverting on William M. Connolley 20:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And if he'd thought he was in danger of being blocked no doubt he'd have done so. Let's keep in mind that he's a seasoned editor and knows the ropes–he wouldn't "break" the 3RR on purpose. Given that, a warning that you thought he'd crossed the line might have done some good. Blocking in this instance was unhelpful, I think. In any case, the matter seems closed for the moment. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference you cite is the effect of taking into account Justif's comments on Talk:Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox . The interpretation of the 3RR you are using is a great way to discourage compromise, and your comment that I "should be calling in to continue the war" is an appalling one! The point is not to have editing wars!

I still want an apology from you for this. Not on my talk page, on the block log. David | Talk 20:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think your block was perfectly valid; so you get no apology. "continuing the war" was an unfortunate phrase, however: I retract it. What I meant was, if you need to keep reverting the sock (and for some reason don't want to get it blocked, which would have been the best thing) then you should get someone else to do it, once you're past your 3R limit. I think M's unblock was wrong; but effectively, as M says, "the matter seems closed for the moment" William M. Connolley 20:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You really do not understand the 3RR. "Three reverts is not an entitlement", and calling in someone else to do the revert after your third is gaming the system. Mackensen may regard this matter as closed but then he wasn't blocked unfairly, was he? David | Talk 20:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was of the understanding, and correct me if I am wrong (Which is quite possible), that a sock/meat puppet can only be blocked if they are, or are acting on behalf of, a blocked user. which is not the case here. --Irishpunktom\ 20:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A sockpuppet can be blocked if it is being used to get around 3RR or some other form of disruption such as giving an appearance of a false consensus. See WP:SOCK. JoshuaZ 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I don't think Justif is a sock of a current user, but I do think it is the same editor as Hale-Byrne and VeraB and the others who attacked the same page in May. Several of these socks were indef-banned for legal threats. One of them threatened bad "real life" consequences to me here. It seems to me that Justif's constant accusation in his edit summaries is very close to being a legal threat against Misplaced Pages. David | Talk 20:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit out of hand but... the basic rule is, don't break 3RR. Except under some very limited excemptions, and as far as I know rv'ing socks isn't one of them. M wasn't blocked unfairly; neither were you; you are lucky that M unblocked you William M. Connolley 20:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As you ought to have realised I did not break the 3RR and your block was wrong. It's really rather pathetic that you will not check to show that you called this one wrong. David | Talk 20:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)