Revision as of 20:07, 9 January 2008

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

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

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

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

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

The Holding Pen

Atmospheric circulation pic

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

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

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

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

Trend estimation with Auto-Correlated Data

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

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

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

Linda Hall editor

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

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

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

User:Reddi apparently back

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

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

The Templeton Foundation

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

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

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

Photo of pulpit in Stephansdom in Vienna

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

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

Glad to have you here

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

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

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

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

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

To Bdj

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your query

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current

Gulf Stream

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

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

Re: CltFn

Now that I'm aware of them, I think it's self-evident that he's violated his unblock conditions. This being said I'm not sure exactly what kind of comment you were asking for. Everything relevant is already in my warning post, it's up to administrators to decide how to enforce the conditions. <eleland/talkedits> 21:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. When I unblocked CltFn I implicitly assumed responsibility for monitoring his parole. I've blocked him for 24h for now, what happens next will depend on his response William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Global warming

Careful there, I think he may be trying to bait us into 3RR. I'm taking this to WP:ANI. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't fret, I'm an experienced edit warrior. I think you're assuming too much experience: I think he's just over enthusiastic. Anyway, it looks like 4R to me so you may get better from AN3 than ANI William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I smell someone's feet, or shoes, or something like that... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing -- this stuff is strongly reminiscent of a previous collaborator, but I can't quite recall who. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Indef that DUCK. Brusegadi (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice Please

I'd like to contribute to the Global Warming Controversy page, either editing it to improve readability or adding information from a private wiki of mine, http://svigs.pbwiki.com/The-Temperate-Zone. I'm guessing it's inappropriate for me to just start doing it without meeting some of the people who feel proprietary about it.

I'm so new I don't know how to sign this. My user id is Jhm15217, my name is James Morris, and my web page is www.cs.cmu.edu/~jhm.

Best advice is to start out cautiously with small edits. If you add readability to start with, wait a little to see how it goes, and use the talk page if challenged. No-one owns the pages William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, looking over your (quite good!) pages, keep in mind WP:V and WP:NOR, our policies to include independently verifiable published results only. Good luck and welcome!--Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at Orrin H. Pilkey

There's some continuous vandalism going on at Orrin H. Pilkey, notably by Step37. Do you have time to take a look at it? --Childhood's End (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This individual's mind wanders uncharted paths. Warn him, and if he keeps it up report at WP:AIV. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh well thanks for the note and you can call me lazy, but I try to stay as far as possible from WP procedural boards and stuff, not mentioning the eventual argumentation with this world champion. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure whats up there... rather whimsical vandalism. Still I've warned him/her William M. Connolley (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

Dear William, I have a message for you (and many others) on my talk page.

Merry Christmas

How kind, thank you! Best wishes in return, and to all who visit here William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Best wishes from me too. Unfortunately this Christmas has bought some unwanted socks (traditional unwanted gift) to the Global Warming page. They are clearly well worn in... Perhaps a check user might be in order? --BozMo talk 08:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You need Raul for that... I think WP:DUCK applies here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I filed a 3RR on our prokaryote-consuming friend, just in case. (Oh, and a belated Happy Christmas to you and yours.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. Your duckmeter is well calibrated. Brusegadi (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And what about "Jeff dowter"...and Unnatural gas...?--BozMo talk 07:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Piers Corbyn

You are right - the removal of the "early" made it more correct - instead of with the invalidated comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for catching my mistake. Do you think we can use http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2008/01/gathering-storm-2.html ? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't edit my page.

Please don't edit my user page. I don't vandalize your user page, so don't do the same to me, ok? --Alexandergungnahov (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't vandalise your user page, as you seem to have accepted; please see WP:NPA William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I edited my page

We'll, i put something better, if that is the way you think it should be. Now, please leave my page be and i will make any corrections that i feel should be corrected if they are incorrect on my page. Thank you. --Alexandergungnahov (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. But please be aware that you don't own your user page. If you put onto it things that adversely affect the main body of wiki, expect people to remove them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i understand.

We'll, you probably don't own your user page either, so does that give you the right to remove stuff from off of my page? --Alexandergungnahov (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is something wrong with your user page of course he is entitled to remove or change it. Otherwise we would tie down userpages only to be edited by the user. Now perhaps we might all get on with the encyclopaedia? --BozMo talk 06:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A dispute with which you may be able to help

Check the last two sections of User talk:PeterStJohn and also the second-to-last section of Talk:Quackwatch. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well. Adding the note wasn't canvassing in my opinion. Canvassing is if you add it to the talk pages of people you expect to be in favour of your view, or some other such. This would be seen equally by all sides. And I'm not sure counting edits to avoid 3RR is a bad thing . As to the edit war, its not clear to an outsider (me) exactly what the issue is; I would be inclined to go towards Krators suggestion and remove most of the detail William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wiki-liberalism

An alternative way of understanding so-called "Wikithoritarianism," aka "defending mainstream science" from vandals seeking to violate WP:FRINGE.

Misplaced Pages:Wiki-liberalism

Zenwhat (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Help

Consciousness causes collapse has a number of pseudoscience promoters trying to argue that general consensus is not seen for the fact that this idea is pseudoscientific. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)