This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) at 21:46, 11 February 2008 (merge+answer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. 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.

The Holding Pen

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)

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

Did you know...

...that you appear to have landed yourself in a bit of a pickle? Either inadvertently or knowingly, by blocking me you have breached blocking policy, specifically:

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."

Was this down to ignorance on your part or were you just hoping I didn't know this? Either way, I'd like an undertaking from you that it will not happen again. Let me also suggest you give yourself a token block to show good faith.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, nice try. WMC was a neutral party who went into the page to sort out COI issues after it was posted on the COI noticeboard as in need of arbitration. You blind reverting him refusing talk was out of order. --BozMo talk 16:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The matter of fact is that William M. Connolley became a part of a content dispute, whether in response to a COI notice or not. That is not considered a "neutral party." ~ UBeR (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Which doesn't change the issue; he should have asked for someone else to impose the block as soon as he and I had a difference of opinion. He didn't. That's out of order. I'd like to hear what he has to say about it.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm only in a pickle if I'm in a pickle. We shall see. There seemed to be no other way to make you talk; now you're talking, which is good. Please continue. Uber: thanks for joining in. Take a look at Shell to Sea and see if it meets your exacting standards of referencing William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, IMHO no. I don't think there was a content dispute, among other reasons because you failed to contribute to the talk page to explain yourself. --BozMo talk 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it does need references, but that doesn't make you any less part of the dispute. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well don't just stand there on the sidelines, jump in! William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't dare. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to be sure that Misplaced Pages's blocking policy will be respected in future. Let's start from there.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Help

I need help. I'm being driven to the point of no return: WP:ANI#Continued harassment ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had a look. I have some advice: you don't need to edit war on pages like WP:AE. People like Thatcher will read the substance. You are fighting an unnecessary battle. Oh dear, and I see that you've both been blocked for it. Please... you can step back from this stuff. If you want to edit controversial articles you are going to encounter unpleasantness. If you're feeling stressed out, have a break or edit something simpler. The articles will still be there when you come back. Looking at Dl's contributions I don't see much obvious evidence of problems over actual article content. Stick to the substance William M. Connolley (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What helps me is patience and trust. I cannot fix every little error myself. Sometimes I just let things go and rely on William to revert the pseudos ;-). More often than not some other editor will step in and help, especially if I clearly explain myself. Sometimes not - in that case I pick my battles (and I'm very thankful for people who pick the hard ones!). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for GW comment

Hi. A little back, after a Talk page discussion, I placed this graph on Global Warming with "Relative weight of warming/cooling radiative forcing components as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report" as the description, and I had given some thought to have the description clear and brief for non-experts. But that was later changed by UBeR (while I was blocked) to "The radiative forcing in 2005 relative to 1750 as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report," but I think this description is not as informative, if not being outright cryptic, for a typical user of Misplaced Pages articles for this type of subject. I had created a new Talk page section proposing changing the wording back to its original, and asked for comments. Only UBeR responded a couple of days later with just I like my wording, actually. I asked him to explain that but he didn't and after a couple of more days, I finally changed the wording back to the original. He then almost immediately reverted me. I reverted back and explained on his talk page how he had ample opportunity to comment before hand but didn't. But he only reverted again, and appears not to want to get into a serious discussion. I have to avoid even a hint of getting into a revert war (which he knows all about), so I'm just requesting some other GW regulars to stop by and offer an opinion on the wording if they have one. Thanks in advance. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you weigh in on this? Raul654 (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've answered on AN/I and attempted a compromise on t:GW. But I wouldn't call it definitive: others may have ideas for twaeking the wording a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)