Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:37, 7 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)

Comment on your comment :)

"A couple of people have said things like “Pseudoscience” is a word rarely used by scientists in the peer reviewed literature - a weird strawman." I am one who repeated that, but I think you've missed the context and the point made. The problem is that if we press for high objective standards of sources (as I do), then it seems to me we have to apply this standard consistently in an article. For example, we try to exclude the reporting of say anecdotal claims of efficacy of a treatment even when published in peer-reviewed journals when the journal is of low objective status. We set thresholds for sources and thresholds of notability for opinion. We shouldn't relax these just when it suits us. It may be that sometimes nothing much has been said. My point really is that well, perhaps better say nothing then; let the case for the irrelevance of something be made by its obscurity. The accusation of dual standards is damaging and I don't think we should risk being guilty of it.Gleng 07:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK, maybe I see your point. What I was trying to say was the fact that no-one has condemned most of the junk as pseudoscience in a scientific journal is irrelevant, because of course they don't: its not fit meat for a reputable journal. What would count is it being ignored. But then you need to say "is ignored" which is hard to prove William M. Connolley 10:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see the dilemna for sure, and of course you're right, it's ignored because it's irrelevant or not taken seriously, and I'd be very pleased to see some agreed objective way of reporting that; people can take what they will from the fact that it's not mentioned in the peer reviewed literature for instance. Gleng 21:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Scientific citation guidelines

Thought that might be of interest to you (and all the other people who read your user page regularly). Guettarda 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out... vaguely relevant to recent Polar stratospheric cloud stuff... William M. Connolley 08:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to suppress editors with opposing POV

An editor is attempting to eliminate or control the opposition. Here is my entry:

• Strong keep Suppression of opposing POV is very unwikipedian. Misplaced Pages is about presenting all significant POV, and attempts to limit the ability of editors to contribute or collaborate is a violation of the principles that govern Misplaced Pages. This is a very bad faith effort and should be stopped immediately and the proposer censored strongly. Many similar projects exist here for supporters of alternative medicine and pseudoscience. To be fair, should they also be deleted? I think not! The proposer needs to learn a bit about NPOV and collaborative editing. -- Fyslee 14:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism#.5B.5BWikipedia:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism.5D.5D

-- Fyslee 14:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here - its going to be kept William M. Connolley 14:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that such attacks on other editors would be frowned on here, in this case one editor attacking a whole group of editors. -- Fyslee 15:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean the nomination? No... William M. Connolley 15:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Raw figures re Image:Insolation.png?

Hi William

I wonder if you can help. We're having a discussion regarding some otherwise useful data that has been added to Photovoltaics, without much in the way of cited sources, and with some confusion over its accuracy. The discussion is at Talk:Photovoltaics#Something wrong with the units of all these figures regarding the 'country' data under Photovoltaics#PV power costs. It struck me that if we could get hold of some of the raw data that went into building the lower image in Image:Insolation.png, then with a suitable explicit calculation from W/m to kWh/kW_p per year (taking account of typical real-word PV system efficiencies), then we'd have something useful.

Rather than picking a few countries at random as at present for surface-level insolation data, maybe we can split up the continents in some general way? I wonder if you can help me track down some citable tabular data?

--Nigelj 15:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah now... if you just want the raw data from that figure you can have it. But of course it won't really be citable. You probably want the GEBA archive from ETH http://www.iac.ethz.ch/groups/ohmura/research/geba, or the BSRN (http://bsrn.ethz.ch/) but it doesn't look like the data is available without some application form William M. Connolley 15:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletions and anonymity

Ah, I just noticed your additions to my talk page re our mutual acquaintance, the unregistered John A (and I'm proud of him for apologizing to User:Fishhead64). I did explain to him that administrators are able to read deleted edits, and that the deletion logs cannot be modified - so, frankly, I'm not 100% certain what he's on about. I've consulted your deletion log, and the only even mildly pertinent deletion you made around that time was an image of a long-term climate graph - and that was only for reasons of copyright. And you don't have Oversight. So I'm perplexed about his 'memory hole' comments (and on an amusing side note, I note that he has deleted the original version of his anti-WP blog, and started over).

Perhaps he's mixed you up with some other administrative William?

Tangentially, I would ask that you cut him some slack re: his spelling - "Connelly" is a perfectly valid alternate spelling, even if it's not yours.

Lastly, since he does appear to be sincere about contributions to WP, I'd suggest that you ease up on the sternness a little bit. DS 22:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I very much doubt his sincerity, since I assume this is CA's John A (you know that one?). And he is being deliberately offensive. If he has made any useful contribs, it hasn't been on the pages we've overlapped William M. Connolley 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A little help

Since you're one of the few administrators I know, and marginally like (that's more than most people), I thought I'd ask you for some help. I titled this article I wrote Corporal Bernard Corpuz, and I think it should be named simply "Bernard Corpuz". Isn't this the proper way the article should be named? I could use your help on this and renaming the article (if needed). Thanks alot, Mr. Connolley. --MonkBirdDuke 05:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably sans Corporal is correct. All you need is the "move" button, you don't need an admin William M. Connolley 09:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been fixed.--MonkBirdDuke 18:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal on the loose

User:195.92.67.75 seems to be a professional wikipedia vandal. Shouldn't this IP be permanently blocked? Miskin 12:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you've looked at that IPs page for the reasons why not. Best listed on WP:ANI William M. Connolley 13:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins article - censorship and post-protect edits

Hi William. I note that after you protected the article user KaptKos did another revert. Sparkhead says I am a "troll" simply because he disagrees with me - this does not strike me as very Wikipedian. Also as a general principle it seems to me that people who make carefully sourced contributions should have their contributions improved on, not simply reverted. I have tried very hard to accomodidate any criticism made, but if people simply want to delete any reference to criticism they should obey the rules. user:Maester Mensch simply ignores 3RR and has made no contstructive contributions IMHO. NBeale 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Um. Well, there are problems on that page and too much reverting from both sides. The mysterious anons who just happen to edit on your side are deeply suspicious, so please do be careful William M. Connolley 22:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Juan Cole pages?

The user has come back with more obvious vandalism on Juan Cole from another ip. How does one going about protecting a page? He is revert warring on both Juan Cole and Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole. Is it possible to block anon ips from editing the page, but allow them to participate in talk? I think if he entered a dialogue in talk the situation would be much better.--csloat 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pages can certainly be semi-protected, but talk allowed. I'm not sure this is quite there yet. There is a requests-for-protection page somewhere William M. Connolley 22:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Any tips on where to find the page? I will let things lie for a while and see if the revert warring dies down after the 24 hour block is up, but I'd like to know where to make the request if it becomes necessary. Thanks!--csloat 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My skin has a sidebar that includes Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection but this maybe an admin feature... William M. Connolley 22:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

NBeale Again

You had asked to inform you if "things don't settle down". They have not: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:NBeale report #2 by User:Sparkhead (Result:). Thanks. *Sparkhead 23:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're one step ahead of me. Thanks for keeping on top of it. *Sparkhead 23:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

William. Now that Sparkhead's "sock" allegations have been officially determined to be invalid might it be reasonable to unblock the people concerned, and work on the basis of good faith all round? NBeale 07:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

(a) which blocks? (b) do you really think that someone whose only edit is to rv that page isn't a sock? William M. Connolley 08:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could start with mine. I am not a sock and am furious at the violation of my free speech by blocking my ability to edit this page. If you want to know who I am ITRW, feel free to check on http://www.zygos.com/profiles/ls.htm . Puppet - bah. Laura H S 15:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You have never been blocked William M. Connolley 14:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you, sorry for outburst, was cross at apparently unilateral action which did mean that for a reason I didn't fully understand I was no longer able to edit that page. I do think that in the Dawkins case the part of the 5 Pillars that applies is 'Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".' It seems to me that presenting the context of eminent scientists and philosophers who have supported or criticised Dawkins' views adds to the value of this page, without undermining the aim of providing a reliable NPOV encyclopedia entry. I would like to see NBeale's section restored, and improved on by subsequent users as Plumbago suggests, and hope I will now have the editorial freedom to contribute to that. Thank you for your clarification of my position. Laura H S 15:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Kokayi is making personal attacks

Kokayi has been attacking me on his talk page ever since I reported him for violating 3RR on the MARTA article and you blocked him for 24 hours. Some of the stuff he is saying is quite hostile and am not sure what is the appropriate action (I am relatively new around here). I tried to warn him, but he says he can do whatever he wants on his talk page. Is this true? What are my options? Should I go straight to arbitration, or can I just delete the hostile comments? I appreciate any help. Thanks. Biomedeng 03:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is stop looking at his talk page. Certainly, on the article talk pages, you are both obliged to be polite. No, this is nowhere near arbitration: see WP:DR William M. Connolley 08:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. Biomedeng 11:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi William, did you see this one? Khoikhoi 21:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You think it's too old now? Khoikhoi 09:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Sorry William M. Connolley 09:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hilda Toledano

I've argued with Justiceiro, but not actually reverted, so perhaps I'm qualified to explain. Hilda Toledano, AKA Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg-Braganza, was a woman who claimed to be the illegitimate daughter of King Carlos I of Portugal. After the death of King Manuel II (son of King Carlos) in 1932, she began to claim that she was the rightful heir to the Portuguese throne under the constitution of 1838, which permanently excluded the line of King Miguel, whose grandson the Duke of Braganza was supported after 1932 by most Portuguese monarchists. There is, so far as I can gather, no serious evidence that Toledano/Maria Pia was really the daughter of King Carlos. The edits to the article are being made by someone who appears to be a supporter of one Dom Rosario, self-proclaimed Duke of Braganza, AKA Rosario Poidimani, an Italian man whom Toledano/Maria Pia supposedly adopted as her heir at some point before she died (in the 1980s, I think). I've never gotten into the specifics of the actual revert war, but my understanding is that this Dom Rosario supporter is keen to get a pro-Maria Pia and pro-Dom Rosario viewpoint into wikipedia, despite the fact that it is a small minority viewpoint. Or something along those lines. Others might be able to correct me. I would not be surprised if Justiceiro/Manuel de Sousa is, in fact, "Dom Rosario," but I have no evidence on that front. john k 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, makes some sense. Thanks. William M. Connolley 09:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

PSC's

Did you see my comment on the PSC page about changing the name to Nacreous? What do you think?--MonkBirdDuke 19:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed. As the page sez: Polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), also known as nacreous clouds, are clouds in the winter polar stratosphere.... PSC seems a good name for clouds in the polar stratosphere. I'm sure I've said this before... oh yes William M. Connolley 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Shattered Consensus (or so they claim)

Hi William,

you might want to take look at Talk:Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming and the associated article page. As far as I can tell, not just the book, but also the article about the book is full of crap. However, I have no access to a copy of the book to document problems in detail, and I haven't seen any reviews. Is there something on RealClimate? --Stephan Schulz 22:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Why have you blocked me?

Could you tell me why I have been blocked? I don't believe any of my edits can be construed as vandalism. Is this an AOL problem? The blocking information, for your reference: Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by William M. Connolley for the following reason (see our blocking policy): psc vandal again Your IP address is 207.200.116.132. Thank you for your attention. GwenW 11:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If I had blocked you, you wouldn't be able to edit here. I blocked the IP for the reason given. AOL is a problem William M. Connolley 12:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

someone advised me to use an AOL secure bypass to post here when blocked. Why did you block the IP number? - "psc vandal" provides me with no information. GwenW 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you've already realised that you were only an unfortunate by product. But if you want the full answer, its polar stratospheric cloud William M. Connolley 21:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I need help! Sorry for the 3RR violation.

Dear William M. Connolley!
I need your help. I think there is a biased User:PANONIAN. Please check his works on these articles Anti-Hungarian sentiment and Serbophobia. Just an exemple, he has written that both Hungarian and Serbian soldiers killed civilians of each other in the Anti-Hungarian sent. article. Ok then I've written the same in the Serbophobia article because. He reverted my edits because he sad that the first artcle is an irredentist one. He marks me as a fascist and a neonazi because I have written the 1944-1945 Killings in Bačka article and I have written about the Independent Vojvodina theory. And I am not the only Hungarian user who is marked biased by him. For example User:Öcsi and User:VinceB. There is another funny revertion by PANONIAN. I had changed the phrase "killings of certain nuber of Hungarians" to mass killings of Hungarians because there is already an article about the meaning of mass murder, but he reverted my contribution without explaination. The problem is that PANONIAN is a multi-awarded editor because of his exelent geographical works. He owns also a neutrality award, I don't know why because if he makes an article it will be neutraly disputed. So I am sorry about the violation of 3RR, I hadn't know about the rule before. So please help if you can because he uses his awards for political manipulations.
I am waiting for your answer.
Your sincerely>
HunTheGoaT 13:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to interfere in a content dispute between you - you need to try to talk this out on the talk page, and/or get other editors involved. "He marks me as a fascist and a neonazi" - he is certainly not allowed to call you that William M. Connolley 13:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If I ever called him as a fascist and a neonazi, I kindly asking him to quote page where I said that. Also, I did said that article "is irredentist one", but it was more-less a joke and certainly not personal attack against somebody. By the way, as user HunTheGoaT said here himself, he constantly write articles with inflamable nationalistic content, so what I should do when he do such thing? Not to touch "his work" or even to encourage him to do more of that stuff? I am sorry, mister Connolley, for using your talk page here, but I always like to answer if somebody say bad things about me behind my back. :) PANONIAN (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR in re: El Dorado Canyon

Please explain the reason behind this 'block' on edits of El Dorado Canyon. As you can see from the discussions tabs, I have been repeatedly asking for justification for the name switch (please note that the switches were originally carried out by TheFEARGod.) I am not averse to hearing out a discussion, but I found that his name change (done without explanation) to be rather high-handed. Jkp1187 04:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming#Graph on top of the page.

Your response in this section is formatted as a response to my comment. Did you interpret me as saying the chart should be changed in the absence of a free-use, peer reviewed alternative? If so, can you explain why you thought I said that, so that I can improve my on-wiki communications? What I intended to say was different than what I believe that you heard. GRBerry 15:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I took you to be criticising the graph as lying with statistics. I took you to be thinking that the originator of the section was making some valid points. I pointed out that the X and Y scales fit the data, which seems only sensible. If you meant something else, I don't know what it was William M. Connolley 17:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeking Clarification

Hi, you had recently blocked me (8 hours) for 3RR citing this edit history. I didn't appeal the block, but I'm rather new to RC Patrol, so I want to make sure I understand it and don't repeat "bad" behaviour. I know that reverting blatant vandalisms doesn't count towards 3RR and I had assumed that the exception also covered BLPs ("unsourced negative material should be removed...this is an excetion to the 3RR rule"). You obviously concluded that my reverts were inappropriate, but I'm not sure exactly why. My last revert was to remove the sentence "He is widely rumored to have spit on his wife" which certainly seems to qualify. I suspect that the block was actually related to a short series of earlier reverts between myself and User:Fix Bayonets!, but that also leads to confusion. I had the impression that blocks are supposed to be "protective, not punative" in nature. However, at the time you issued your block, those edits were 12 hours old and the issue had long since been resolved on the article's Talkpage. Again, I'm not appealing, or even complaining, just trying to understand. I know you're busy and have many responsibilities, so thanks in advance for your time. --Doc Tropics 18:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't block you for that last one, which I agree was close enough to pure vandalism, but for the 4 before it. 12 hours is a fairly short time for 3RR - anything over 2 days old is unlikely to get you blocked, though even then there can be exceptions. My advice would be that there is no real point risking a block for RC patrol - stick to 3R per article (excepting only really blatant vandalism); other people will spot it. I'm sorry if you were acting in good faith - from my viewpoint, its often hard to tell. And picking and choosing "good guys" is not really encouraged either, harsh as that may seem William M. Connolley 19:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Your advice for avoiding 3RR was certainly right on point, and I shall endevour to follow your suggestion. I really do appreciate your time, and don't want to waste any more of it, but I also have a couple of questions about how this will affect me:

1. I recently applied for Vandal Proof, but I suspect it will be denied because of the entry in my block log. Is there anything to be done for that, or should I just avoid RC Patrol altogether? (manual reverts are really too cumbersome, and I usually lose the "edit conflict").
2. I had hoped to run for Admin early next year, but I suspect I should now wait 4 - 6 months because of the block log entry. Does that match your assesment of RfA/Block Log controversies?

I'm sorry to be bothering you so much with this, but the block really took me by surprise and I'm feeling quite chagrined. Thanks again for your time. --Doc Tropics 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know owt about vandalproof. For admin, breaking 3RR is a black mark, but not a killer (just look at me :-). Especially in this case, since you have moderately good cause, and you can point people towards me saying this if you like... William M. Connolley 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)