Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HagermanBot (talk | contribs) at 12:32, 14 May 2007 (Britcom didn't sign: "User Page comments."). 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 & 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).

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)

Improving the models

I find this to be a fascinating example of the improvement of weather models over time. Do you happen to know of any comparable quantitative metrics by which climate models can be seen to have improved over time? Dragons flight 07:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice pic. The one I'm more used to seeing is the length-of-useful-forecast graph, which shows similar improvement. However... no I don't know comparable pics from climate models. The obvious problem would be that you can't do it year-on-year, climate models being far less frequent: the hadley center has arguably only had 3 model incarnations. They do have a "model index" which finds that hadgem1 is better than hadcm3, but I don't know if that was ever applied back to hadcm2, much less to other centres William M. Connolley 13:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

when you say 3 models, does that include or exclude improvements in spatial resolution as computing power has improved? Dragons flight 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant hadcm2, hadcm3 and hadgem1. There are others, but it could get complex. Do you want to include atmos-only models? Those are the "official" releases, sort of. There are various experiments with different spatial res, but its not clear if those were meant to be improvements... William M. Connolley 17:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well at the moment I am just sort of curious about what is being labeled a "model". I could see the term being used to refer to either a set of coupled differential equations (which might then be implemented on a variety of different grid sizes), or to a specific implementation on a specific grid size. Do you ever take your differential systems, and leaving them as is, try to increase the number of grid elements through the use of more powerful computers? Dragons flight 17:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. "GCM" means the full set of code, on the whole. Ie, big set of PDEs and params on top. But also, in general, it means a specific config and setup. "hadcm3" means a given code version, plus given ancils (e.g. land sea mask), plus a given resolution. You *can* run it at, say, higher rez; but there is no guarantee that its better. But yes, I know there were various projects with higher rez versions... the problem is that because of the about grid^3-4 dependency, you can't run much higher rez, if the model is anywhere close to state-of-the-art William M. Connolley 22:52, 4 December 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)

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)

Good handling of the issues at the global warming article

I'd just like to say that you have been handling all the edit wars and attacks from the dissenters quite well, despite their accusations of incivility on your part. Keep it up; Misplaced Pages needs more people like you. -- Cielomobile 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, I appreciate it William M. Connolley 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't bite!

Please don't bite the newcomers as you appear to do here - hardly something which is going to encourage people to want to come and improve the article, is it? QmunkE 09:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - this newcomer seems to have fixed opinions and a regrettable tendency to WP:OR. If you're going to help educate them out of this, that would be great William M. Connolley 09:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The way the few of you that seem to own the GW article treat people who make edits is bad for wikipedia, particularly when it comes to civility. Some of them are only making changes since the article still doesn't meet the basic criteria of an FA. Others apparently reference articles some of you feel aren't up to standards. While I applaud your attempt at using quality sources, your execution is the problem. I hope all your sources are primary, and not blogs (which I saw reference to on the talk page), because that would be another wikipedia problem. Thegreatdr 13:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I just cannot resist asking if the crowd few you perceive as owning the WP article is a greater or a lesser few than the few many eminent scientists who are sceptical about important parts of GW? --BozMo talk 13:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

All I will say is that scientists tend to be skeptics, evaluating the data for themselves. I can't think of many topics within the natural sciences where there isn't debate about some fine point of data or logic. I really can't delve into my opinions on global warming, because technically, I have to follow the party line set by the Climate Prediction Center. Thegreatdr 19:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't really want your opinions on GW. But it doesn't prevent you editing on the science William M. Connolley 09:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming this is in answer to the message I left on your talk page, then: what I to ask what was specifically wrong with the article. Meta-arguments about ownership are all very well (I disagree with you, of course) but usually unproductive. What is actually wrong with the article? William M. Connolley 13:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than the tone on the talk page (which all need to work on), all references need to be in the same format. If an author's name is included in one reference, you must have authors in every reference. If you start using ref/cite web/whatever format, you need to maintain that format through the entire page. That appears to be a basic thing even for GA articles nowadays. Every statement, particularly if it states what some may characterize as controversial, needs a reference. The way we seem to work within the meteorology and tropical cyclone projects (as you are probably aware) is to include at least one reference per paragraph...but due to some people's views on the GW topic, this article needs to be referenced even better. You all are correct that wikipedia is about consensus views, not fringe views. You must be able to achieve enough stability on the page that you don't need to protect it every few days. Civility through the talk page appears to be the easiest way to achieve that. Thegreatdr 13:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm disappointed, I was hoping for some science (I'm not saying your complaints are invalid, just not so interesting to me). (a) I have no interest in the ref format (b) I disagree re ref'ing every statement - sub articles do this where needed (c) it hasn't been protected for quite a while now (d) civility - sounds good. I blame the skeptics, of course, but I'll see what I can do William M. Connolley 13:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not discuss science concerning that article...it has led to infighting in the past, and I don't wish to get drawn into that fray for the time being. =) It's best to keep the science out of discussions about the status of a wikipedia article. Usually the science will be adequately covered by a well-referenced article...unrepresentative views (which can be found in newspaper or magazine articles, sometimes even in books) usually aren't published in what would normally be considered primary sources (such as refereed articles in journals and government-issued reports). Thegreatdr 13:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am delighted that you have nothing to criticise on the science - this is my major interest in the article, as I've indicated above. Are you interpreting this too narrowly? It's best to keep the science out of discussions about the status of a wikipedia article - somewhat odd, as the NPOV disputes, which have been the major problem (pointlessly, as its now back to stable with no change from this perspective) have been about the balance of science William M. Connolley 14:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The guy has a job in the field and has identified himself on wikipedia, so it is dangerous for him to discuss the science in this area. I've demonstrated that I am perfectly willing to discuss the science on the GW talk page, if you are interested. Leave him alone. Are you really willing to discuss the accuracy and usefulness of the models frankly and in the open with intellectually honest admissions of valid points? Join me in discussing the substance of peer reviewed articles and not numbers of articles and numbers of scientists. You use the term "skeptic" as if it is a pejorative, instead of the proper approach for any scientist to take when reviewing the literature or conducting research.--Africangenesis 18:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaking wikipedia for a usenet group. Its clear that you have read a paper or two and have decided that all the attribution results are invalid due to model errors. Its also clear that the PR literature on attribution disagrees with you. Your opinions (unless published) don't belong on wikipedia. As for leave him alone - this is unwarranted and impolite on yuor part. In climate research "skeptic" has a particular meaning - it identifies a loose group of people who oppose GW theory on irrational grounds - it does not have the conventional meaning (we used to have a page on this, but it got deleted: the text was /gws William M. Connolley 09:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you were using "skeptic" as a pejorative. With this in mind, the "Global warming skeptics" category, may be a pejorative or personal attack category. If "irrational" is one of the criteria for inclusion, then perhaps it is being misused, or at least, not enough documentation is being required before it is being used.--Africangenesis 15:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I use "(GW) skeptic" as a perjorative - it refers to people who cannot, or will not, evaluate the evidence fairly. You only have to look through the "list of sci" page - most of the "arguments" used on that page are wholly irrational (not all, mind, just most of them). But of course if you *are* a GWS (as the person creating and using that cat is) then its a compliment - bizarre as that may seem William M. Connolley 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I really can't delve into my opinions on global warming, because technically, I have to follow the party line set by the Climate Prediction Center. This has to be the sadest claim I have heard in ages. A research center that dictates opinions to its members is worse than useless, and a scientist who "follows the party line" against better knowledge violates the basic ethos of science. If you cannot speake your opinion, leave. Or speak it anyways, and make them try to fire you. --Stephan Schulz 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Being silent is at least better than speaking in lockstep. As long as one's own work is not compromised, there is no obligation to correct all the world's or organization's wrongs. Sometimes you get stuck in quagmires, no matter how noble and just your motives and position.--Africangenesis 20:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

NOAA is supposed to speak with one voice...end of story. Imagine what would happen if a hurricane approached the coast, and everyone within our organization was free to say what they thought within the NWS/NOAA. Same goes for Winter Storms and climate issues such as the ENSO cycle and GW. The papers/media would have a field day. And on the issue of GW, they have had a field day with Chris Landsea of NHC, amongst other researchers from various universities. We are Borg...oops, I mean a government organization. And please, civility. While all government workers do work for the people since we are your tax dollars at work, it is not your place within Misplaced Pages to tell me what to do, unless there is a specific wikipedia rule that applies to this case that I am breaking. Then you can point it out. Don't shoot the messenger. Have a nice day. =) Thegreatdr 20:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle

You removed this from the IPCC article, claiming that it is a "joke". I can't see any obvious mention on the film's article, its talk page or its website about it being a joke, however. Brian Jason Drake 01:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What I believe he means is most scientists who are at least aware of climate research find this 'programme' to be so one-sided, full of errors and misdirection, to be laughable. So no, it isn't literally a joke, but the joke is unfortunately on those who fall victim to it's propaganda.--Skyemoor 01:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite William M. Connolley 07:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't take sides. I think what Brian Jason Drake would say, with significant evidence from top scientists to back him up, is that most scientists who are at least aware of climate research find Al Gore's 'programme' to be so one-sided, full of errors and misdirection, to be laughable. Gore's film and his Academy Award for it isn't literally a joke, but the joke is unfortunately on those who fall victim to its propaganda, including entire countries requiring all school children to watch and be frightened by that propaganda. That's what I think Brian Jason Drake would say, and it would not be idle speculation given the major scientists speaking out against Gore's film and the image it portrays. He would likely also argue that the same people pushing Gore's award winner are the same ones characterizing The Great Global Warming Swindle as a joke.

Now on wikipedia, it's POV to say one view is "laughable" while the other view is not, particularly where both views are deemed "laughable" by their opponents. On wikipedia, we are supposed to rise above the partisanship and present the truth. I say let Brian Jason Drake develop his ideas to see if they are wikiworthy before just shooting him down at the first opportunity. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I won't take sides.' Then you proceed to.

2. most scientists who are at least aware of climate research find Al Gore's 'programme' to be so one-sided, full of errors and misdirection, to be laughable. Who are these scientists? My statement has the backing of the scientific consensus. Your's has Rush Limbaugh.

3. let Brian Jason Drake develop his ideas to see if they are wikiworthy. They were put on WP without yet being developed? He can always float ideas on the talk page, which is the preferred route with undeveloped ideas. --Skyemoor 12:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Personal attacks/arguments do not advance the issue either. Rather, they make one not want to get involved for fear of personal attack. All I did was use preexisting language in this subsection to illustrate how it could easily apply to the other side -- I was not saying it does in fact apply. All I said was you needed to hear out his full argument before shooting him down. Is that unreasonable? Is that a reason to be pulling out the howitzers/Rush Limbaugh arguments and the like to shoot me down as well just for suggesting people be reasonable and hear someone out? This kind of treatment is not wikifriendly. No one wants to contribute with buzzsaws shooting them down like you have been doing. Your talk page idea is the way to go. Buy why you just did not present that without the machine guns firing I'll never know. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me try to address your point, which I take to be I think what Brian Jason Drake would say, with significant evidence from top scientists to back him up, is that most scientists who are at least aware of climate research find Al Gore's 'programme' to be so one-sided, full of errors and misdirection, to be laughable. I think this point is wrong. Most climate scientists have broadly agreed with Gores film. It is mostly correct. Unlike TGGWS it has not faked or misinterpreted any graphs or interviewees. If you look at the crit section of the article, its very thin, and some of it is nonsense (Balls bit for example). It seems to me likely that you disapprove of AIT: if so (or if not) what do you regard as its major error? William M. Connolley 12:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

His implication that the correlation between hurricanes, even Katrina, and global warming is strong. His claim that invasive species is a result from global warming. Extinction rates. That 300,000 people will die per year by 2025 because of global warming. Etcetera. ~ UBeR 16:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that his implication is wrong, and said so. But he doesn't state it explicitly. I don't recall the 300k bit, but it seems quite likely, though the balance of plus and minus is rather harder to guess William M. Connolley 16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not seen either movie and have no idea about the facts. I was just taken aback by that guy's attitude and was suggesting some fairness would be appropriate. I was even using his own language as an example -- it is not what I actually believe. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's point was I think what Brian Jason Drake would say, ..., to be laughable. They were simpling showing how I could use such language in relation to AIT in the same way as Skyemoor used that language in relation to TGGWS.

The idea that TGGWS is propoganda is no reason to remove it from the IPCC article. The section you removed even stated that TGGWS was controversial.

You refer to Misplaced Pages:Undue weight in the next section. I don't see how this is less significant than the other sections, particularly Landsea, who is just one person. Brian Jason Drake 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe L is undue weight... but he is a serious scientist making a serious point, even if I think he is wrong (and loses moral points for not saying "ok the end result was all right, afterwards). But TGGWS was not serious science: it made no attempt to be honest: it was propaganda William M. Connolley 08:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You Weaken your Own Case

William: In general, Truth can more easily withstand attacks by Falsehood than the other way around, which is why people who are wrong are usually more vehement in trying to silence their opponents than those who are right. In looking at various pages, I've noted that you've removed references to sources that contradict your views. Your doing that weakens the argument for your views, because it raises the suspicion that you are worried that your POV will not withstand scrutiny. Vegasprof 11:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you've made allegations against this admin, it would behoove you to support your case. What 'sources' are you referring to? Did they meet WP:REF, WP:Verifiability, etc? Did you note the reasons given for any rejected 'sources'? Your accusations are built on no evidence, so your own case is weaker than a newborn lamb. --Skyemoor 12:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but the "admin" bit is irrelevant. However, more specifics would be useful. Wiki needs to be balanced; I've removed refs at various times that contradict reality William M. Connolley 12:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. :-) ~ UBeR 17:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, UBeR. Since it is true that The Great Global Warming Swindle is notable, and since it severely criticizes the IPCC report, the reference to it should not have been deleted from the IPCC article. The fact that its content contradicts your view of reality is not relevant to that issue. If some reliable source claims that The Great Global Warming Swindle is itself unreliable, then that should be posted on that page. But unless you are quoting a statement that you made in a scientific journal article, your opinion should not be considered, since that would be OR. I'm sure that you agree with me, William. Vegasprof 18:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring WP:Undue_weight. A reference to TGGWS on the IPCC page is such. --Kim D. Petersen 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I just spent some time going over the history page for IPCC. There may have been a reference to TGGWS there when you last looked at it, and it might be back by the time you check it again, because it's been popping in and out in the "Great Global Climate Change Swindle Revert War"  :-) I have noted that there are lots of criticisms of the IPCC report on that page, although the one that is constantly being reverted is one of the severest, since it openly accuses the IPCC of deception. I fail to see the justification for excluding the reporting of this claim on the IPCC page. I would still like William M. Connolley to justify his deletion of that paragraph, as he did on 21:55, 1 May 2007 (the paragraph has since been re-reverted, and then re-re-reverted, in what seems to be an endless cycle.) Is the justification that the points raised by Paul Reiter are not reliably sourced, becuase they appear in a movie, rather than a scientific paper? If so, then any quote from An Inconvenient Truth is subject to the same criticism. Vegasprof 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

William, I know you're probably asleep now, since you live in England (I think) but please answer my question after you wake up (or whenever you find it convenient). If anyone else wants to debate this with me, I suggest we move that debate off William's talk page, as a courtesy to him. Either put it on the IPCC talk page, or even my talk page. Vegasprof 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight is part of it; the non-seriousness of TGGWS is another; the unsourcedness of Reiters claim yet another (which report is he speaking of?) William M. Connolley 08:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tropics

Your last post at Satellite Temperature Record shows . You remove a comment made by Christy because his comment only pertains to the tropics. Climate change theory suggest troposphere temps rise faster than surface ONLY in the tropics.Jepp 01:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly, you've made that up William M. Connolley 08:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

How embarrassing - my apologies - the report does indeed say that. Hmmm... needs some more thought William M. Connolley 13:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had another go at re-writing it to my taste William M. Connolley 13:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Who did that?"

That was 66.220.242.25 in this edit. They appear to be just a garden-variety recurring vandal and I've now given them their latest block (in a longish series of blocks).

Atlant 12:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Atlant and William M. Connolley: I am aware of a "garden-variety recurring vandal," only he/she's not too garden variety since he/she is a big wig in a major, nationwide organization who's POV he/she continually pushes and who relys on sock puppetry to spread those views. If the future of stopping this behaviour is the "latest block in a longish series of blocks," should I just forget about trying to have administrative action taken against him/her? Should I just continue to monitor and revert the POV edits, minding the 3RR rule? Note, I am the sock puppeteer's main reverter, but a number of others have been doing it as well over the many, many months of this person's single mindedness to insert the major organization's POV over wiki pages. Thanks for any ideas, and if you are overloaded on other matters, I'll understand. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you can bring it up on WP:ANI and/or get the socks declared socks, which makes the blocks easier William M. Connolley 13:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you answer please

I am working on a page under my user space and a user is posting messages on its talk page. I do not wish to see his messages there because they are not relevant to topic. He is saying that I will violate WP:3RR in my user space talk page. I think he is wrong. Can someone clarify it please? Can I violate 3RR on a talk page under my user-space? I wish to work without disturbances from him. Looking for your reply. --- A. L. M. 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly posting to someone elses talk page when asked not to is impolite. You cannot really violate 3RR on your user space William M. Connolley 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --- A. L. M. 16:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

humm, he has reported me Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:ALM_scientist_reported_by_User:HighInBC_.28Result:.29. Can you look at it please? --- A. L. M. 17:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, may I ask for help again? A person called me "The extremist" and same admin is saying it is right . Why WP:NPA does not apply here? He keep stalking me and putting message on my talk page. Is that possible that he leave me alone for sometime? He is giving me mental stress. I hope to have a reply. --- A. L. M. Can you help? 15:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what help I can offer. If you'd rather be called a terrorist, you're asking for trouble. And your current signature is provocative. I foresee trouble ahead William M. Connolley 20:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It was sacarism obviously. I do not wish them to call me terrorist or extremist. It might be fun for them but not for a Muslim to call by these two names these days. Why signatures is wrong? I wish to file an arbitration case and wish people to help me in that. --- A. L. M. Can you help? 20:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to file an arbcom case (a large step, and not necessarily a good one) do so; but having a sig with "can you help" linking to a disputed page in your user space is a bad idea. Especially since you clearly don't want people editing that page, which makes it advertising William M. Connolley 20:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I really do people to help me in that. Neutal people like yourself. In fact I am literally begging for help and posting many messages around to find some help. However, HighInBC is pushing hard for including pictures and he do not wish to help but wish to Ruin it. I changed my signature if that will help. --- A. L. M. 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. First of all you need to be familiar with WP:DR: jumping straight into arbcomm is not a good idea. Mediation appears to me to be dead; however there is nothing to stop you simply talking to HighInBC. I suggest you prepare a brief message, that you would like High to see, and first post it here so I can comment on it. It should be *brief*; state the problem; and what you would like to do to resolve it William M. Connolley 20:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just read through . You are not doing yourself any favours. Calm down a little: you wrote: Anyway, I am out of here. I do not care anymore - clearly thats not true or you wouldn't be here. Also you have had I think we were just trying to say that your point of view is extreme. I for one did not mean in imply you were an extremist by nature which is effectively an apology for the original complaint: be gracious: accept it as such. Annoying people by repeatedly heaping the insult on yourself in bold is not helping you, as you must have noticed William M. Connolley 20:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I left it aside now. They have not warned HighInBC hence now it is over for me.

The dispute about Muhammad pictures is not among me and HighInBC. The arbitration case I wish to file is about pictures dispute and not about HighInBC. The dispute about Muhammad pictures is very widespread, we had mediation on it Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. That lasted many months and ended with no solution. The RFC will also end like that. It is because, in the mediation many people came who had never even edit single time in any Islamic article. They usually agree that we should have images, because they do not know the background and they only feel Muslims are trying to censor wikipedia with their religion taboo (I hate this word taboo). The only solution that look feasible is arbitration. For example look at the comment of one arbitrator Talk:Muhammad#Input_from_ArbCom_member. I think if a set of readers will study the background carefully only then they can decide that it is wrong to present few pictures made about Muhammad again and again in all the articles. It is against WP:Undue weight. --- A. L. M. 21:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon vandal

Made by, 58.178.82.24 Vandalism here, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Poison_dart_frog&oldid=127908083, and here, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Poison_dart_frog&oldid=127908172 Malamockq 00:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - missed this. I assume its no longer current William M. Connolley 13:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea I reverted it. He might do it again though. Malamockq 01:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

World Climate Report

Hello MDr. Connolley. You removed this clause from the page "but clearly evinces an acceptance of anthropogenic global warming" saying that you saw no such evidence. I then reverted it and added supporting evidence in two references. You then removed the clause once again, saying that the first reference didn't show such acceptance and that the second was not WCR. To address the second first, as I see it the Michaels article that I cited in reference #2 is relevant because he is the chief editor of WCR. His viewpoint dominates. And that article shows he accepts AGW and CO2 as an AGHG. Regarding reference #1, it reads "There is no doubt that fossil fuel burning around the world is causing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, and CO2 remains the number one anthropo-generated greenhouse gas." I think this is pretty clear and is in keeping with Michaels views as he has expressed them in numerous venues. I think this puts the burden of proof on you to provide clear and incontrovertible evidence that WCR and Michaels do not accept AGW. Finally, and I hope you don't take this personally as it is not meant as an ad hominem, but I note that you are a member of a rival organization to WCR, namely Real Climate. One might see a conflict of interest here, especially in the absence of any evidence against WCR and Michaels's acceptance of AGW. Cordially, Geoffrey Plauche (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Veritas_Noctis)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veritas Noctis (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

RealClimate as a rival of WCR???? The mind boggles... Raymond Arritt 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the following to the discussion page for the WCR article earlier today: "I added another quote from the source in reference #1 ("ethane is far more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 – the same mass of methane would warm the earth 23 times more than the same mass of CO2.") to buttress my claim that WCR accepts AGW. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)" Perhaps the first quote by itself isn't decisive on the issue of AGW, but the addition of this one (from the same WCR article) ought to be enough. By the way, I meant "rival" merely in the sense that they have often differing views on global warming. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 05:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh...and I dropped the word "clearly" too, if that helps. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 05:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This would all have been better on the WCR talk page - so I shall reply there. But Raymond is correct; and your assertion of COI is wrong William M. Connolley 09:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll keep that in mind about proper venue. I guess we disagree on the conflict of interest issue. I certainly wouldn't say it precludes you from monitoring the article, but I do think it places an extra burden to be objective. By the way, as you will see on the WCR talk page, I'll take your suggestion on wording it in the negative rather than making a positive claim. That is satisfactory. I just don't like to put nothing at all because the phrase global warming skeptic has a strong implication of rejecting the idea of global warming period or anthropogenic global warming, and I don't think that they reject either GW or AGW outright. Regarding the note you left on my talk page: I am aware of WP:3RR, thank you, but I don't believe I reverted more than three times. I only reverted two times yesterday, in fact. The other changes I made were not reverts. They were either unrelated to the issue being disputed or were separate attempts after the second revert to satisfy you on the issue (not an undoing of your own changes). Cordially, Geoffrey Allan Plauche 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

COI: see top of this page (now). As for WCR... my opinion (which of course I won't put onto the page itself) is I think rather similar to RA's: that they present different faces to different people: they are trying to appear skeptical, because that is their audience, whilst mostly sticking to the facts, which is a very tricky thing to do, given the facts. Which makes for some convoluted writing. As for the reading, I don't know, since I don't William M. Connolley 15:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Global warming

Wow, I have tremendous admiration for you so...

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For tirelessly fighting POV pushers on the Global warming article and others I, Aaron Bowen, award you this defender of the Wiki barnstar. Aaron Bowen 00:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had a similar problems on a much smaller scale with a user at another article and the whole process was so stressful that it almost made me not want to edit anymore. After seeing your work and all you've been through, I'm almost ashamed to admit that I let it get to me. Aaron Bowen 00:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I've copied it to my main page for a day or two William M. Connolley 10:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconding this. I mostly just lurk on the Global Warming pages, since I don't really have the expertise to debate it effectively, but I am always gladdened to see you keep up the good fight. :) --Ashenai 11:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Zbigniew Jaworowski

You are mistaken that his ice core analysis were not published in scientific journals. There were. Also, he wrote 2 versions of technical report. I referenced these papers. Did you read these papers or you are relying on internet sources? 76.21.25.40 14:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read the papers. I hope you read my edit comment. See ZJ talk page William M. Connolley 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Some redirects created by Ed Poor

They were first redirected to the global warming page, but later someone redirected them to global warming controversy page. I redirected them back, but I think they should all be removed.

Count Iblis 21:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I deleted the first one because nothing else links to it. As for the others... not sure... do they do any harm? Someone *might* search for GWT I suppose? William M. Connolley 22:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess they are harmless as long as they are watched. Some of them were redirected to the global warming controversy page some time ago and no one noticed. This could be harmful because if you have many pages with global warming or climate change in the title that link to the global warming controversy page then google will give that page a higher ranking when searching for information on global warming. Count Iblis 22:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, they should point to GW William M. Connolley 08:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mel Etitis

Hi. Just wodered if you could look into the civility issues with user Mel Etitis. He seems to be causing some problems with several users and this could affect other users' willingness to edit on Misplaced Pages. Thanks for your help 66.152.177.126 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah - but may I suggest that edits such as and are dodgy - please try to edit seriously and get an account William M. Connolley 17:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy on removing rude/trollish comments?

Hey, I'm trying to remove some rather rude and trollish comments (the comments intend to offend or annoy) on a talk page, but User:DBZROCKS keeps reverting my changes. I left a message on the user who left the trolling remarks that he can repost his opinion in a more civil manner, but to keep rude remarks off talk pages. You can see the changes here, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Dragon_Ball&diff=129351604&oldid=129351094

I may be right or wrong in this, so let me know. Malamockq 21:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Trollish remarks? The person simply said no and signed his comment. Also the fact that you were coming to the wikiproject talk page to revive an article for a charecter who appeared for 2 chapters in a manga should be put forth. Also I don't think Dark Dragon Flame intended for anyone to be offended. DBZROCKS 21:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The first comment was not trollish comment. It was his second response that I felt incited flames and was not particularly helpful. I invited him to share his opinion in a less rude way on his talk page. Malamockq 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Without context, I would say the second comment is perhaps a bit unhelpful but not enough to justify its removal William M. Connolley 08:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear William M. Connolley

If you're going to tell people not to make tendentious edits, please set a good example.

Diff 1

Diff 2

Thank you. --Tjsynkral 23:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If TGGWS can be called a propaganda film on Misplaced Pages and it isn't considered POV pushing, then it would seem to be okay to do the same with Inconvenient Truth, would it not? I find these edits to be disturbing examples of POV pushing, certainly not neutral language. "Documentary film" is neutral; "propaganda film" is not. Propaganda has a negative connotation. Polemical is a more neutral word as the film has the character of a refutation on a controversial subject, but in the controversial context of the global warming debate on Misplaced Pages it should probably be avoided as well. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Documentary" implies a factual documentation, something AIT does (if overdramatized), but TGGWS has managed to completely avoid. But I agree, polemical is better than propaganda... --Stephan Schulz 00:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS is clearly propoganda. However, we had compromised on including Polemic within the lead; regrettably that was broken by TedFrank ] . The edit comment explained this William M. Connolley 08:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mörner

Wonder if the skeptics realize you're doing them a favor by removing the real nutjobs like Correa and Mörner. It's ironic that they insist on adding people who only make their position look foolish. Raymond Arritt 17:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt they know about Morners dowsing... William M. Connolley 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I doubt it would matter if they did know. Raymond Arritt 20:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Long Tail

Users Stbalbach and BozMo are repeatedly removing content for which appropriate citation is provided, claiming that it is “cherry picking” to cite an interview of Chris Anderson (who supposedly coined the term “long tail”) in which he states that it was a reference to demand curves, and “opinion” to cite Alfred Marshall about the nature of demand curves, on the way to noting that a different reference was later used to motivate the term “long tail”. I have suggested that this be taken to an admin or to arbitration. I am now doing the former in the hope that you will clarify to one or to both parties whether citing unfortunate facts is WP:OR &c. —75.5.175.229 07:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

S and B are both sensible editors. I advise discussing this on the talk page (as far as I can see you have not done this) and getting an account William M. Connolley 09:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

people removing valid sources and genre tags on Blink 182

Hello, user "Alex 101" keeps removing the Punk Rock genre tag from blink 182, this tag is sourced by 3 valid sources and weeks of disscussion went into the descision to put it up there after the vote was disputed. He refuses to disscuss, he just wipes the genre, i don't know what to do. Olir 19:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well first off this is a wiki - use wiki tags to link me to what you're talking about. Second, don't accuse people of vandalism for removing tags - it isn't; and saying it can only inflame things. Third... I don't know what the true answer is, and if I didn't my opinion wouldn't matter much. Third, your first ref for "punk" is clearly no such thing. I didn't check any further William M. Connolley 19:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. You gave me a warning about the 3RR policy. Thanks. But I didn't undo anyone's stuff. People are undoing my stuff. I added legitimate information with legitimate links, and people keep erasing it. I guess I can get in trouble because other people are ganging up to silence me. Well, thanks for the warning. I certainly don't want to get in trouble, suspended, or banned. Grundle2600 21:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You also need to read WP:REVERT, because you are wrong: this for example is a revert. The issue seems to be mostly sorted though; but you need to know about 3RR. WP:1RR is also nice William M. Connolley 21:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I do not want to break the rules.

How come it's OK to mentiom the Kyoto Treaty multiple times on the global warming page, but it's not OK to mention nuclear power even once? The Kyoto Treaty is a huge failure. Countries that signed it have had their carbon emissions go up, not down. The Kyoto Treaty is for people who want to give the appearance of caring about global warming, with out actually doing anything real to solve it. Nuclear power is for people who actually want to solve the problem. I am a person who wants to actually solve the problem.

Any article on global warming that does not mention nuclear power is not a serious article. Grundle2600 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. This article (correctly) has little to say about solutions to GW. That belongs elsewhere, as has been said on t:GW (so why bring it up again?). Whether or not KT is probably a value judgement, but KT clearly needs to get mentioned, if briefly William M. Connolley 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I understand. Thank you for your advice and suggestions. Grundle2600 22:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

WARNING: Re: Removal of NPOV Dispute Tag

WARNING: Re: Removal of NPOV Dispute Tag Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming: Please do not remove dispute tags until after the dispute has been resolved on the talk pages. Please see WP:NPOVD if your are unaware of what Misplaced Pages rules are with regard to NPOV disputes. You are encouraged to voice your opinion on the relevant talk section regarding this dispute. --Britcom 10:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warming, but I'm familiar with the rules. Unreasonable tags may be removed and thats what I'm doing. Please discuss this peaceably on talk and don't attempt to bludgeon things with tags William M. Connolley 11:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW I think Britcom just 4RRed the tag in question... --BozMo talk 11:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And the rule has been pointed out to him before ... --Nethgirb 11:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User Page comments.

Please study the Misplaced Pages Three Revert Rule WP:TRR Policy before you accuse a fellow Wikipedian of violating that policy. Maybe you should take a break from editing for a while to cool off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Britcom (talk • contribs) 12:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC).