Revision as of 02:38, 30 December 2009

The Holding Pen

Ocean acidification

A reader writes:

"Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments. This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with moderate (and potentially beneficial) implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean."

I'm not sure, but it sounds odd. You can beat me to it if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like it was User:Plumbago William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Correctly deduced. It was me. It may not be worded well, but I think that it's factually correct. Basically, as well as its other effects on living organisms in the ocean, acidification is also expected (see the references) to dissolve existing carbonate sediments in the oceans. This will increase the ocean's alkalinity inventory, which in turn increases its buffering capacity for CO2 - that is, the ocean can then store more CO2 at equilibrium than before (i.e. the "implications for climate change" alluded to). As a sidenote, it also means that palaeo scientists interested in inferring the past from carbonate sediment records will have to work fast (well, centuries) before their subject matter dissolves away! Hope this helps. --PLUMBAGO 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Double diffusive convection

Bit surprised there is no article on DDC? Has the term gone out of fashion? It was half the course in "Buoyancy in Fluid Dynamics" when I did Part III 23 years ago. --BozMo talk 13:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember is was a nice demo on the fluid dynamics summer school DAMPT ran. Not sure I would still be confident of writing it up 10:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I might have to suggest it to Huppert or someone. --BozMo talk 10:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If one of you two makes a stub, I'd be willing to read up on it and make it a longer stub. Awickert (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What a kind offer. I have started here: Double diffusive convection--BozMo talk 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All right - I'll get to it (eventually). It's on my to-do list. Awickert (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

CSS site

Forgive the quick note, but I happened to notice the comments at the top about CSS, and some places to learn about it. I second the site mentioned, but also take a look at the CSS Zen Garden at ] - it's a great place to quickly see what CSS is capable of doing. Basically, it's a site where people take the exact same HMTL page, but use a different .css file, and completely change how the page looks. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Current

Your ArbCom userpage comment

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Fools and their foolishness

I just found this

Oh look: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/web-iquette-for-climate-discussions/ Isn't that good? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

He used web-iquette for medical discussions as a guide. That reminds me of How Doctors Think which is a great work on how brilliant, well trained, experienced people can get things wrong every day. I wonder if there is a way to do the same thing. Ignignot (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Pole shift analysis Mediation request

I have offered my services as a mediator for the Pole shift analysis mediation request. As you have probably seen, discussion is currently undergoing at the talk page and your input would be appreciated before we go any further. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wondring aloud

I have to wonder if there isn't some deliberate foot dragging, given sentiments previously expressed by Arbcom and other insiders. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Um. I missed the Raul stuff in August and now feel guilty about not expressing my sympathy (literally in this case :-(). Old score settling I suspect William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What Raul stuff in Aug? Email if you prefer. --BozMo talk 07:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing secret, just not common knowledge. It is off on some arbcomm-y type page; Raul dropping CU tools; I'd find the link except someone watching can probably find it quicker William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Raul654 -Atmoz (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You have mail

Please check your e-mail. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that was pretty subtle of you. Has no-one told you this is supposed to be a *sekret* cabal? I'll send you the decoder ring William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally - for anyone else - I read my email as obsessively as I edit wiki, so there is no need to tell me William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I have a free section - let me point all to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#RFC.3F which has got rather buried under the dross. I can't see any way of avoiding this - it is clear the edit war will erupt as soon as the protection is removed. Unless we aim for user RFC's on some of the more pointless and disruptive folk. Thoughts? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Atmospheric soot (of more than one kind :-)

I've got enough to get into without getting into this (I see "the emails!!!" as bs), but will comment...

Based on vast knowledge of scattered info-fragments pooled in brain from leaving cableTV playing in background ... I'd say there's some cooling arising from "atmospheric soot" ... and we could just encourage China to burn more and dirtier coal ... to "solve" global warming problem ... but that "solution" is problematic. ;-) Yet cooling from atmospheric particulates (including incompletely gaseous male cow farts) may appear (e.g, to bs consumers) to complicate the evidence of warming. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this is the Superfreakonomics heresey William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean the Discovery channel was wrong!!! (lol) Anyway ... I see you got your bit back. I'd like your flag. Do you have a Steward friend who'd make me an admin for ten seconds (the length of some blocks I've seen lately :) ... then I can fly that flag. So cool. (Um, not globally, just cool) ... Silly mood at 6 AM and not slept yet ... Don't forget about that 10-second admin thing. In any case, best of luck in the election (won't tell you how I voted, but, did I mention I liked your flag? lol) Happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• PS On a more serious note, since the issue of particulates from burning coal still rang rather true in my neural net ... I needed to find this on brown cloud particulates in Asia ... which warm the air, but still cool the ground. lol Still pondering that .. but wouldn't have found that article without this light holiday exchange. Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Madiera m'dear (or Dundee Cake)

Ref BLP and the thread I contributed to a few weeks ago and lost. No not L. It was stuff like . I think this crosses the line into giving credence to claims of victimisation and people could draw their own conclusions without it. But it has been edit-warred loads of times, even though it should have been conceded. You I think reverted in on a sock basis so I should probably argue it with Kim but he'll find it here too. --BozMo talk 20:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that one? I thought it was the smoking stuff. That one I would argue is accurate. Then there is the fine line of "should it be included?", which I agree that reasonable people (as well as a fair number of unreasonable people) could disagree about William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the only one but the individual was the reference to food. Unfortunately he always reminds me of a colleague in Francophone Africa who menioned his mother was a Sewer, pronounced the wrong way. Anyway on this one I do not doubt that these fine people said such a thing in the editorial part of their website, so I agree it is accurate as their opinion, and they may well be sufficiently expert (you would know). But in my view it almost becomes the opposite of damning with faint praise (exonerating with weak criticism) if we trawl around for this sort of thing when there are much heavier criticisms than condemnation on a blog. I am happy to disagree with you about it (I agree it is fine judgement) and I really don't want to get into BLP. But directionally when I do I am going to argue for reducing borderline criticism on asthetic as much as policy grounds. --BozMo talk 21:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. When I said "accurate" I meant, what they said is a good descripton of reality William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not in a position to disagree with you, certainly. But as you say that's not grounds for inclusion under house rules. --BozMo talk 22:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Henrik Svensmark

Just a heads up that I brought this up on the NPOV Notice Board - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Henrik_Svensmark_-_Self_referencing.2C_undue_weight.2C_Editor.27s_own_blog_as_a_RS.3F

While not really a believer in Svensmark's theories, the format of the article is odd to say the least, and gives undue weight to Gavin et al, who is already referenced in a peer reviewed format in the article. Nothing personal Arnold.A.D. (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This comes up too often, I should write it down somewhere. William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

err, but you know that already, because of the post you linked to. Is this good faith? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

William, any way you could get the RC guys to update this page: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/william-m-connolley/ - it was posted in good faith, I did not see the goodbye text in my cross referencing, and will adjust my POV statements accordingly. Regards, Arnold.A.D. (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I spoke too quickly. That post was intended to have been updated to say goodbye, but doesn't do so clearly William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the Internet... it happens :) Best Regards, Arnold.A.D. (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

British libel laws...

...much as I despise them, might be a decent application for them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. Better not to dignify him with the attention and walk away. --BozMo talk 18:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not passing jusgement on this either way. I just wanted to draw it to your attention.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There are now many angry e-mails arriving at info@wikimedia.org, presumably from readers of that column. Here's how I'm answering some of them (reproducing this here because it may help other OTRS volunteers):

Thank you for contacting us with your concern.

Misplaced Pages is a collaborative encyclopedia (as explained at <http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Introduction>), and so anyone may edit its articles. Its policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias, as is discussed extensively at <http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:NPOV>.

However, all matters relating to article content and project administration are not controlled by a central authority, but are decided through discussion and consensus of all collaborators. The nonprofit Misplaced Pages Foundation, which operates Misplaced Pages, does not intervene in the day-to-day operations of Misplaced Pages, does not make decisions about the content of articles or about administrative actions, and normally takes no stance in disputes about Misplaced Pages content or administration.

There are several tens of thousands of contributors and more than a thousand administrators on the English Misplaced Pages alone, which normally ensures that no single editor or administrator can exert a commanding influence over the project or any particular aspect of it. There are also often disputes about content or administrative policy, but Misplaced Pages has solid procedures to resolve disputes and to make sure that every contested action, including the deletion of articles or the blocking of contributors, is subject to review in a community discussion or by an independent Arbitration Committee (<http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee>).

I hope that this addresses your concern.

It might be helpful if you wrote some statement onwiki to which these people could be directed to hear your side of the story.  Sandstein  21:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It might also help if you included text in your reply that the independent Arbitration Committee has recently removed the administrative rights of William M. Connolley as he "misused his administrator tools by acting while involved" as evidence of the mentioned solid procedures in place to review contested actions. Uncle uncle uncle 02:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be brave... if anyone external actually looks and finds the way it was done that could be rather embarrassing for Arbcom? --BozMo talk 08:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Gosh thanks. I didn't know anyone cared. I guess I'd better read the thing before mocking it. I notice he complains about my 500 deletions. says he is correct but says most of them are b*gg*r all to do with wiki. More later William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to engage Solomon would constitute a Rule 5 violation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

For the moment, the answer is http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/12/i_am_all_powerful_part_2.php (I don't see why I shouldn't get some blog traffic out of this :-). If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask. I'll put the conclusion here for convenience: "Conclusion: a rather dull article by Beany. Nothing new, and he hasn't done his homework properly." William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me make sure I have this straight: your deletion of Hilery clintin was not done at the behest of the pro-AGW orthodoxy at RealClimate? MastCell  23:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the many evil acts which made arbcomm stomp on me. You see, crime never pays William M. Connolley (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm absolutely gobsmacked William. The EEML is small beer compared with your realclimate.org team. --Martin (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but we took care never to leak our extensive off-wiki collaboration William M. Connolley (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Alas, it is so. --Martin (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

t:GW

I replied on my page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbcomm result

I should comment, although there is little to say: Misplaced Pages:ACE2009 says it all. My claim to fame is having the lowest "neutral" count of the list. But also the lowest % of all the non-wacko candidates :-(. But my thanks to all who supported me William M. Connolley (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, yes, I voted for you — despite your complete lack of nuance with respect to atmospheric soot. :-) (I am smiling, but it is still an interesting idea that the "brown cloud" of Asia, both increases global warming, while cooling the ground). (Not a joke. See the nsf.gov article.) Now, I've spent zero time thinking about this ... but my rhetorical matrix probability calculations says there is something in that fact which has not been fully explored — at least from the perspective of countering the email bullshit shouting. lol Anyway, Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely odd. Aerosol usually contributes cooling. I'm not sure why this bit makes for warming William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol, you're not paying attention. It's the brown particulates (see: "Brown Cloud") ... that absorb heat, increasing atmospheric warming ... while also cutting off light to the ground, making it cooler.

P.S., I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that I've acknowledged on my user talk to having voted for both Jehochman and William M. Connolley. (I feel comfortable amidst the disreputable. ;-) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, instead of viewing the result as "the lowest of the non wacko candidates" you could view it as "the highest of the wacko candidates". ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Lar, you're such a class act. As for the election itself the outcome could have been much worse. There were a few "non-wacko" candidates who could have done major damage but thankfully weren't elected. The dearth of good candidates was a problem but I'm not too unhappy with the result. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Cla68 wasn't elected which is a terrible shame, but other than that it's not too bad an election, I suppose. SirFozzie, Kirill, and Steve Smith being elected are all quite awesome outcomes. And of course, WMC not being elected is a vast relief for many voters, apparently. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Cla86 not being elected was one of the candidates Boris (and I) were referring to William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Non wacko? Agreed. Very non wacko. He's eminently sane, chock full of the right ideas, and the community badly messed up in not electing him. Or perhaps that wasn't quite what you meant? ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#add IPCC context and mission per talk?

Thank you for starting that section after reverting. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your misleading summary of an edit to Hockey stick controversy

You gave a misleading summary of an edit to Hockey stick controversy. I reverted your change. I will revert further changes that have misleading summaries.

Also, the quote that I added was to replace misleading text. If you want to delete the quote, you should replace it with something that is not misleading. It looks to me like you are trying to bias the article. I suggest that you read WP:NPOV.

AlfBit (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My edit summary was accurate. I've read WP:NPOV William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Medieval Warm Period

I've read reports on the 'net of you 'cyber-bullying' people on this article and getting de-admin'd for it. I hope there's more to the story than what I've read, but frankly, I didn't like your flippant and cavalier revert of me there the other day and I am fully prepared to seek having you barred from that article if you revert me on an ongoing basis there without talk page dialog. This is your one fair warning - please don't blow it. Instead, please dialog with me on the article talk page if you don't like my edits. Thanks. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You're hopelessly wrong. If you're interested in reality, come back to talk here and we can go through sentence-by-sentence William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You want: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745 William M. Connolley (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

or this: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

I'm unsure of the appropriate forum to address this, and my opinion is unfortunately mixed at this point. - RoyBoy 23:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Le gasp. WMC, how did you take control of all these 5k articles?! Amazing... OlYeller 23:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

He has his group of trusty minions, of course. I watch over Leviathan (book) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. I think Boris is entrusted with Talk:Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War II. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

COI:William_M._Connolley_and_Global_Warming has been started, please place serious discussion there. - RoyBoy 00:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic... There's a difference between COI and having a different opinion that you (I think WMC falls in the latter). OlYeller 00:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why I was forced to add "serious". I nearly replied outlining how it can be done, thanks to Wiki innovations. - RoyBoy 01:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I thought you might have an interest in the new policy being considered. I just came across this now and thought maybe sharing it with others would get the word out. If not interested, igrore please. Hope you are well, happy holidays, --CrohnieGal 10:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a really bad idea to me William M. Connolley (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi

Would you consider a short-term semi-protection "Billy"?! Just a thought... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I already applied without asking. --TS 16:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

How rude... ;-) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done For a short period. Should make the vandal quit. Malinaccier (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Made him move to my talkpage! Don't worry about prot though.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think a short prot is needed. and are drawing a number of people who are not used to our ways William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll give it another few mins then do it myself. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Your user page now semi-prot for 7 days. Let me know if i can help further. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help (you realise you're part of the cabal now, of course?) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I was born that way... It's always just been a matter of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest allegations

Please see Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:William_M._Connolley_and_Global_Warming. User:RoyBoy thinks it's better to take this seriously and investigate than to just blow it off. I think I see his point. --TS 00:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've responded there William M. Connolley (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(By the way, I'm a big fan of "mocking." :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So what happens when your grant money runs out? Will you find a new myth to hype? Or will Ms. Kerry just ship another crate of cash? You see it unraveling, don't you? We do. 64.53.136.29 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Mocking that remark would be like shooting mock fish in a mockery barrel. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As if the money they pay us would fit on crates! It's all electronic transfers, and a good thing that they finally moved to 64 bit architecture - it got tedious to keep track of all that individual 4 billion payments! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Tree Worm!!!

Merry Christmas Tree Worm!!! Grundle2600 (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And Merry Christmas to you too. I've smallified it a touch, though William M. Connolley (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you, too. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Its a nice picture - and Merry Christmas to both of you. (and all the lurkers :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to All William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kim. Merry Christmas to you too. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Digg

That National Post blog made the front page of Digg at least temporarily, so you can probably expect an increase in vitriolic garbage to spew forth from the dark depths. Just a heads up. Falcon8765 (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good fight

It seems odd that having an expertise in a field makes one have a COI in the eyes of some. I'm glad that the COI case against you was closed and was heartened that sanity prevailed. Even though I voted for you, I'm also a bit glad that you did not become a Arbitrator b/c I think you are needed more on content patrol and improvement. I know from experience that being on ArbCom is a soul-sucking task with hardly any rewards but a hell of a lot of unnecessary drama. All it did for me was burn me out for a long time. I don't want that to happen to you. Keep up the great work! If you collected barnstars, I would make this one. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 22:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

By golly I remember you from the old days. Thanks for showing up and being kind; it is good to know that good people care William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

'Tis the season of giving

		Home-Made Barnstar
		This barnstar is given in appreciation of William M. Connolley for his resilience in the face of those who would use him as a whipping-post for all their climatological gripes, his tolerably good humor in spite of these unending ordeals, and his keen wit that makes him one of the most effective Wikipedians with whom I have worked. Awickert (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to you. Happy festive period (probably the correct greeting between Christmas and the new year) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Weeds

Did you know this existed? These things keep popping up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

My watchlist says I do. I even attemted to AFD one - I think it was the Japan one - but with no real conviction; and the obvious ignorant folk popped up to defend it (but not, of course, to improve it) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon

I'm not trying to divide up anyone. Please note this comment I left for ChrisO earlier. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy with that. I'm on a slow line today so don't have time to get to the bottom of everything; apologies if I've misrepresented you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

I posted this at User talk:Marknutley and I think it applies to everybody who is continuing the edit war by performing multiple reverts.

Hi, I noticed that you're edit warring on this while accusing others of doing the same. Would you like to try a different method? Please let us continue the discussion at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I'll try to get the other editors to stop, too, but I'm contacting you first because apart from Thegoodlocust who was blocked and Stephan Schultz who seems to have stopped you are the editor who has been most aggressive over the past 24 hours. An RFC is ongoing and an administrator is watching this article carefully, so it isn't in our interests to misbehave.

--TS 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I deny the bit about "accusing others of doing the same". Assuming you mean that bit for MN only, then yes use of the talk page looks like a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

74.117.60.148 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, and please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)