Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:54, 16 November 2006

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

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)

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)

Thermohaline article

I think the "quite the reverse" phrasing is weasel. Can we change it to "other studies find the opposite." and cite it? Abe Froman 20:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Because you were a red person I rolled you back - perhaps a bit impolite. However - I don't think its a weasel phrase. I'll copy the discussion onto the page talk... William M. Connolley 21:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Templeton Foundation

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

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

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

Jimbo Wales interview

In a recent interview with The Guardian, you also got a mention. Isn't this interesting? Cheers, Sciurinæ 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found me yet... any hints as to about where? William M. Connolley 20:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

9:30 I seems William M. Connolley 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Block of D.Prok. (talk · contribs)

Hello William. I read the report on the WP:AN/3RR page and saw that you blocked this user for 24 hours for WP:3RR on the Michael Shields page. From the look of it, the user in question made three edits and reverted to his version three times and not four which is a prerequisite warranting a block. I understand that WP:3RR does not give any user authority to take the system for a ride and blocks are warranted when they have been repeatedly disruptive, but this user was new and it would be preposterous to assume that he was aware of the policies and guidelines on Misplaced Pages. Prima facie it appears that User:Chacor did not care to discuss the issues properly, but only left edit summaries such as rv, stop reverting to POV version and failed to explain why he thinks that this revert is POV. I, in good faith believe that you should have warned the user against a 3RR breach instead of blocking him, and asked Chacor to discuss the matter with him. In my opinion this constitutes newbie biting. Take care. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

D Prok made 4 reverts, not 3 edits. If he is a newbie, how come he knows about POV tags and reverting? William M. Connolley 11:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd be surprised to know how resourceful those newbies can be... ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick 11:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

He's just sent me a rude email, so he can sit out his block as far as I'm concerned William M. Connolley 11:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You might like to know

Hi, Just thought that, given your background, you might like to know about The Citizendium. I can provide further details if necessary. By the way, sorry about my compromise proposal; I should have read over the article and talk page thoroughly first. --nkayesmith 11:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I know about it; I've blogged about it: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/09/larry_sanger_has_a_dream_citiz.php. As for joining it... we shall see. Is it actually running yet? Its not clear from its homepage whether it is or not William M. Connolley 11:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is running; the six-week pilot project is underway (see Citizendium). Access (both reading and editing) is limited to those who've applied - application process is here. --nkayesmith 12:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You have to apply to read? Hmmm... maybe a mistake William M. Connolley 12:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - the Misplaced Pages article on Citizendium makes a connection between the "access to read" thing and between Larry's annoyance at uncompleted policy discussion going on Misplaced Pages as fact. Perhaps it's due to technical issues. Anyway, there are a few hundred people on the pilot wiki, working on a few hundred designated "Live" articles, with a few articles being made "live" every day. The entire text of Misplaced Pages has been imported, but not the edit history or images. --nkayesmith 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, are you going to comment here? --nkayesmith 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiev Expedition

Hello William, would you be able to take a look at Polish Expedition to Kiev, starting with the October 20 move. There is a misunderstanding concerning the title of the article. A while back I had made the move to Kiev Expedition after no objections on the talk page, however Ghirlandajo prefers another title. I have been unable to engage him in discussion on the article's talk page, and he deletes my messages from his talk page, so I'm not sure how we can reach a suitable compromise. Appleseed (Talk) 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Appleseed, for such complaints, the right place is WP:ANI rather than cherry-picking of admins. On the side note, Ghirla's move is totally justified and his edit summary is clear. You moved the article a while ago yourself on your own. The title to which you are move warring is less descritpive and leaves the reader puzzled on what the hell the article is about until s/he reads it. Girla did not move the article to a POV loaded title such as Polish occupation..." or invasion or plundering. The same word "expedition" is kept and the title is simply made more informative.

William, please do investigate the matters thoroughly before throwing warnings left and right. Trigger-happy admin actions can aggravate rather than alleviate the problems. Also, in general, it is a good idea to treat requests for administrative intervention addressed to a pre-selected admin rather than to WP:ANI with suspicion. We had cases with admins duped into in haste unwarranted actions following such private reports. There are very good reasons why we have a central and public admin board for complaints like WP:ANI where there are good chances to get a feedback from admins not involved neither in the dispute nor with the users in question. --Irpen 20:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be patronising. There is an edit war; Ghirla is refusing to discuss. That is bad behaviour, as is his removal of a perfectly polite comment as though it were insulting William M. Connolley 20:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

William, if posting on your page was the wrong place for this, I apologise. It wasn't really 3RR, since it took longer than 24h, and WP:ANI states that "This is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department", so I didn't know where else to turn. Maybe WP:NPA? I won't spam your talk page anymore, so my reply to Irpen is here.

How was that "patronizing" i wonder but anyway, please note that it takes two to move war. The rest of my statement above both about the move not being controversial in any way, and on admin cherry-picking instead of taking it to WP:ANI stands, and on taking time to look at the matter before throwing warnings and blocks stands. --Irpen 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave you to reflect on your repeated patronisation. Sigh. Ghirlas warning re refusal to discuss stands; as does... oh well, we move in circles William M. Connolley 21:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

William, you should have looked at the history of that page to see who wrote the article and who started moving it at whim. Actually, I initiated discussion of the move on the appropriate noticeboard quite some time ago and received no feedback whatsoever. The discussion is linked from the Russian new articles noticeboard, which both my opponents have on their watchlists. As well known to everyone regularly editing these topics, I don't speak with Appleseed and Piotrus unless they apologise for years that I've been subjected to their personal attacks and incivilities. This very delation is another rude attempt to denounce me behind my back and to bring in an observer who has no clue as to the substance of the content dispute. Finally, in contrast to Appleseed and Co, I don't engage in edit warring, I engage in creating new stuff. Before your unwarranted interference, I started today the articles about Gnezdovo, Sarskoe Gorodishche, Alaborg, Timerevo, Black Grave, Dmitry Samokvasov, Lyubsha... have I forgotten anything? Now I have to stop writing another article and go argue endlessly with revert warriors whose own articles I have never seen as yet. That it's useless to talk with them I know from years of experience. One look at Talk:Jogaila and its endless archives says it all. Do I want to drag myself into a similar mire over some petty issue? No I don't. --Ghirla 22:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Warning tags

Hi William, I just noticed that a Getaway (talk · contribs) has removed warning tags which I posted on his talk for personal attacks and vandalism regarding removing cited information. He claimed that I was just attempting to get the upper hand in a POV debate when I wasn't even involved in the situation in which I warned him for a personal attack. Is he allowed to change the text of the warning tag and to change info which is still signed by me? See and Thanks --Strothra 22:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)