Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 10:21, 19 August 2006 (→[] is not done: Thanks for the explanation, William.). 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 its 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)

Climate

The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has identified this article as a core topic in need of attention, as it needs a lot of editing to bring up to FA standards. Since this is your area of expertise, would you be willing to improve this article? Titoxd 03:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, will take a look William M. Connolley 11:17, 12 April 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)

rm of red links

How about red links inviting people to write about it? Errabee 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point in adding a pile of non-notable links to that page. Red-link is a reasonable test of non-notable. If you care, why not create thse things first? William M. Connolley 15:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Both novels are certainly notable. About the manga I'm not so sure, but manga isn't my field of expertise. According to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Redlinks, redlinks can be added if you are sure the information is notable. I am planning on writing the Fandorin article about Leviathan, but there are so many things to do. Point is however that redlinks are allowed on dab pages, and that caution should be exercised when adding them but also when removing them. Errabee 15:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This has already used up more words than its worth... I won't re-remove them yet. Next time someone adds some more fancruft to the page, I'll probably take out all the redlinks again, so you've got as long as that is... William M. Connolley 15:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You're acting against official Misplaced Pages policy here. But if that's what it takes to stop you from removing it, I'll create a one-liner. Errabee 15:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Climate II

There is a current scientific consensus that humans are causing a rise in global temperature right now, have been in the last few decades, and that it will almost certainly continue unless we do something to stop how we're impacting our climate. Not much of that seems debatable rather than on a matter of degree, which is inherently a matter of contention. Now it seems more so as if it is time for the political, economical and societal portions of the issue to take charge, but without taking over. In this capacity, science in general and climate scientists in particular should try to give as honest and unemotional an answer as possible when asked about the current state of knowledge. If not, science simply becomes either part of the politics or becomes politics in and of itself, and it is then oft dismissed as being biased. That is not really a good state for anyone involved. Taking a stance is a good thing, but not to the exclusion of the realities involved to take that stance to anywhere other than where one is standing.

Hopefully, in any certain area discussed, the person or group answering is expert enough to add positively to the discussion, at least from their viewpoint, and so as to adequately show the opinions that differ; so as to allow us engage in some manner of honest debate. We should realise that matters of opinion will always differ between people and groups of people, but facts and neutrality should be attempted to be practiced upon all aspects of the discussion involved, be they scientific or otherwise. And yet still, science can always be finding manners by which to influence other processes associated, as such are usually also a part of science, wanted or not. Being non-political while still getting one's point across, as much as possible, helps to make viewpoints known and also helps involve those with a stake in the debate into it as openly as possible. This also helps shape the policy aside from one that is based purely upon the science (or any other single point) of an issue under discussion. Such is how things work in most cases, regardless of how we might wish them to be. Light travels at 186,282 MPS in a vacuum, but science does not exist in one.

One problem is that simply saying "There is a scientific consensus on global warming" because to many that is a fairly vague statement. As such, it opens the subject to a discussion of specifics rather than just a statement from a particular view, where the participants may know what it means, but others often do not. The “public” may not know from a scientific standpoint exactly what given terminology means, and many of the reported major media stories are about 'now now now, bad bad bad'. Leading off with that sort of viewpoint is not often a common ground with which to find consensus on the larger issues.

Looking at what William M. Connolley (Oxford, BA Arts and PhD Philosophy), a Senior Scientific Officer in the Physical Sciences Division in the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System project at the British Antarctic Survey, said at Real Climate in late 2004 regarding the four scientific consensus main points (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86) of the IPCC. Our interpretation of the post and subsequent replies, as well as other discussions of the subject, is that people in general might not realise the full scope of either the reported consensus or the conclusions of the current disagreement. The rhetoric at times swamps the facts, and often the background noise becomes the foreground matter of life and death. Knowing what the discussion is actually about is important to discuss it rather than argue about it.

To paraphrase Dr. Connelley's insightful post at Real Climate: The IPCC shares the view of every major scientific organization in the world. In its 'Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis', the scientific consensus on climate change is detailed as being basically this: The Earth has become warmer by .17 degrees centigrade in the last 30 years and .4-.8 C in the past century; people are causing this increase in warmth; and if the emissions don't stop, warming will continue and increase. Dr. Connelley then lists that the somewhat disputed conclusion is that this is a problem and we should do something about it before it gets worse. He then states that basically, and quite correctly in our view, that agreement on that last point between reasonable people will probably depend upon the scope, width, breadth and degree of the problem area being discussed.

Hopefully, we have categorized his views correctly, and think ourselves that the conclusion is overall true. We mostly agree with him on this subject, even though his opinion on weasels is quite obviously incorrect, as any school child knows that badgers are the key to enlightenment.

Leaving you with two different unrelated quotes from a government report, House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, 2nd Report of Session 2005-06, The Economics of Climate Change Volume I: Report, which is itself a matter of contention as well. However, it certainly supports the idea of more public awareness and it also supports continued or increased funding of more research in the area of climate, to better understand this issue and how it impacts other issues or factors in this one. The idea is that anything involving something as complex as climate science can be simple or easy, or that factors exist on their own at times outside of the realm of being able to control them; this is the reality. Issues such as these almost always involve policy, so attempts to take policy into account, that's a variable that is not very independent. And by that measure, taking policy into account is almost certainly scientfic, at least in a way.

"We are not convinced that there is sufficient public awareness of this issue. Any public misperception on these issues could threaten the political feasibility of getting plans of action put into effect. If climate change is as serious as most scientists claim, and as the Government accepts, then it is important to convey the complementary message that the action to tackle it will also have to be serious and potentially life-changing. It is better to be honest now than to shield the public from the economic realities inherent in the more pessimistic forecasts."

"We do not propose to evaluate these doubts, nor are we qualified to do so. We are also aware that climate scientists who adhere to the human-induced warming hypothesis have responses to most of these sources of doubt. But the science of climate change remains debatable. We heard from witnesses who seemed in no doubt at all about the science, while others expressed one or more of the above concerns. That makes it clear that the scientific context is one of uncertainty, although as the science progresses these uncertainties might be expected to diminish and be resolved, one way or the other. Hence it is important that the Government continues to take a leading role in supporting climate science, and encourages a dispassionate evidence-based approach to debate and decision making."

Sln3412 07:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... yes, but what was your point? William M. Connolley 07:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing really maybe, I just suppose I wanted to take a stab at writing an opinion on what seems to be the current state of the debate and some of its factors as they related to each other. Maybe I just felt like writing it. But I wanted to make sure you saw it, since I reference you and paraphrase your post. (As well as other ideas and statements here on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere.) So do you think it's fair and accurate (without asking you to edit it or anything like that) in general? I'm not sure what, if anything, I'm going to do with it yet. You are welcome to use it (not that you'd probably want to). Well, heck, it's GFDL anyway I suppose. Sln3412 23:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems fair enough. You should source the last quotes... HoL? Evidence based policy: nice idea... William M. Connolley 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A report a point of contention? No way!!!  :) Yes, done, added source. Now if we can just get everyone to agree to participate in evidence based policy.  !! !!!!

Believe it or not, I'm really in the middle on this issue. Although I get sidetracked. Maybe that's the same as being a skeptic. It seems on many issues if you're not for us, you're against us, (pick any controversial topic like gun politics which is what I was thinking of) where a lack of agreement with one view "proves" total agreement with the other view (which may or may not be reciprocal between "sides"). In fact, I think I just kinda figured this climate change argument thing out, maybe I'll write about that too, but later, some day.

You might take a look at the discussion Stephan and I have over there about Water Vapour (WV), an idea I got from reading the entire HoL report, discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#House_of_Lords (I do actually read all of most everything, or at least the related paragraph or chapter of something, and try to quote from it. The difficult part is quoting some of these complex convoluted statements like Oreskes and Lindzen and others make, it's hard to figure out what they have actually said. Or are trying to, to quote what it was.) Ahem. Anyway, on WV I have some suggestions to make things match a little better on some terminology, so everyone knows what's being discussed. But if I ever do publish the above essay, I'll take out the weasel/badger controversy part! :D It wouldn't be fair. Sln3412 22:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WV is a GHG. But its passive not active. See http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html William M. Connolley 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. Shouldn't that be said when the articles talk about it? My point was that it confuses non-scientists and non-climate scientists (and anyone not paying attention to atmospheric matters?) to call it the same name under different contexts and not explain it in the context, or even talk about it differently in different sections on the same page and try and force the reader to either think like a (climate) scientist, or to try and correlate that all, or whatever we call it. The pages call it feedback/forcings, you called it passive/active, Stephan called amplifier/primary cause, and we could say are temporary/persitent or easily absorbable/non-easily-absorbable, etc. Is the problem that nobody can write it more clearly without getting out of neutrality or going POV out of the consensus view of the statements of the societies or without being as unspecific? It might be a lot clearer and less confusing for readers (and for you, easier to deal with the attempts at editing things to one incorrect POV or another) if everyone knew the difference at all times what subject we're on!  :) Here's the pages/areas that talk about it in major ways:

GW summary: "The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect." (That might confuse people just on its own)

GW atmosphere: "Current studies indicate that radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is the primary cause of global warming. Greenhouse gases are also important in understanding Earth's climate history. According to these studies, the greenhouse effect, which is the warming produced as greenhouse gases trap heat, plays a key role in regulating Earth's temperature." (says greenhouse gas forcing causes GW, no differentiation)

CC GHG: "Current studies indicate that radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is the primary cause of global warming. Greenhouse gases are also important in understanding Earth's climate history. According to these studies, the greenhouse effect, which is the warming produced as greenhouse gases trap heat, plays a key role in regulating Earth's temperature." (Rest of section never mentions WV as one but not one only passive/non-forcing/amplifying only.)

CC Interplay: "Water vapor, methane, and carbon dioxide can also act as significant positive feedbacks, their levels rising in response to a warming trend, thereby accelerating that trend. Water vapor acts strictly as a feedback (excepting small amounts in the stratosphere), unlike the other major greenhouse gases, which can also act as forcings." (never mentions phrase "GHG" or difference)

GHG page: "Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gaseous components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect. Like the glass of a greenhouse, greenhouse gases are transparent only to some wavelengths of light. ... It is the downward part of the longwave radiation emitted by the atmosphere that comprises the "greenhouse effect." The term is something of a misnomer... The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes between 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes between 3-7%. Note that it is not really possible to assert that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. (The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.) " (states the major GHG is WV)

WV page: "Gaseous water represents a small but environmentally significant constituent of the atmosphere. Most of it is contained in the troposphere. Besides accounting for most of Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which warms the planet, gaseous water also condenses to form clouds, which may act to warm or cool, depending on the circumstances. In general terms, atmospheric water strongly influences, and is strongly influenced by weather, and weather is modified by climate." (says it causes the effect, no differentiation)

Sln3412 22:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

I'm trying to run a correlation between the ages of notable participants in the "global-warming debate" and their answer to the following question:

Do you feel that the conclusions of science are of sufficient confidence and strength to justify government action to enforce behavioral changes for the purpose of influencing climate change?

I have your year of birth, but your writings that I've read haven't answered the question to my satisfaction. Would you mind giving me your answer here, on my user page, or you CAN e-mail me? Discussion is welcome, but I will try to infer a "yes" or "no" answer. If you decline to answer, I'd still much prefer a decline to mere silence. --Joe 16:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My position is somewhat nuanced, perhaps... I agree with the IPCC WG I. I believe that the science of how-much-will-t-change is clear for the next 30 years changes, and reasonably clear for 50. What I usually back away from is being too definitive about *impacts* about which I know much less, and to justify govt action you need both the science of cl ch (as I say, fairly clear) plus will-impacts-be-bad (or, is the probability high enough to justify worry they may be bad). I'm inclined to think that they will be more bad than good, and a precautionary approach probably justifies behaviour modification. Though some things should be done first, like not subsidising coal production William M. Connolley 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I think it lands you pretty squarely ATOP the fence, for now. Your reticence regarding impacts is very well-taken (and not always taken by climate-change aficionados who feel their expertise extends into any area in which policy seems suggested by their views, or are simply panicked into setting aside their fears of such impacts). It seems as regards government action, you prefer less of it before enacting more of it, a course I heartily concur with, if I may.

I'm considering changing my question to something like, "Do you consider the Kyoto (mandatory) Protocols to be justified?" That question is subsumed within the one I placed to you, but I think the Kyoto version is easier to answer, and may give me fully as meaningful a result.--Joe 01:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Mihai Radulescu

At 19:56, 14 August 2006 William M. Connolley deleted the article Mihai Radulescu with the comment: foreign

When you encounter a non-Enlish article in the English wikipedia, you shouldn't speedily delete it. Instead, add the {{notenglish}} tag, and add the page to Misplaced Pages:Pages_needing_translation_into_English.

In this case, the page was later recreated by another editor, and the text turned out to be a copyvio from http://www.literaturasidetentie.ro/biografie.php I replaced that text with a stub. By the way, as you might guess from the ".ro" in the domain, the text was in Romanian. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it cos the tag said: This page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: it is a foreign language article that exists on another Wikimedia project (CSD A2). If there is something wrong with that tag, I suggest you need to go and get it revised William M. Connolley 09:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and 3RR

Hello admin. Technajunky keeps deleting sources and facts from the article Timur (in this case, it is a quote from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, which is one of the most reliable and authoritative sources in regard of Islamic history). Besides that, he has violated the 3RR. Please revert his changes and maybe block the article for a while. Thanks. Tājik 18:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: here is another well-respected source disproving his claim: "Timur" in The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2005, Columbia University Press)Tājik 18:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:3RR William M. Connolley 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Deuterium is not done

This diff is further illustration that he's just hoping to find an admin new enough to go ahead and block me on his now twice reviewed 3RR report against me. I'm not going to edit anymore on the 3RR page (as I said I wouldn't) relative to this case but if you could take some action against this editor now it would be apprecaited. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And here's that same report filed again. Seriously this editor didn't get the message from the block given to him (and myself unfortunately). (→Netscott) 23:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just getting stranger and stranger. (→Netscott) 00:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now William M. Connolley 08:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Indeed this editor has been dealt with (thankfully). I learned a valuable lesson in this whole experience. In the future I will properly label similarly natured edits as the ones I was performing on the 3RR noticeboard yesterday as "rvv" per the "Changing other people's comments" part of Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. You might respond to User:Bishonen's enquiry on the Deuterium ANI threads. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 10:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be a bit more cautious than that. Look at the 3RR rules: only *blatant vandalism* is immune William M. Connolley 10:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. You'd not consider a regular editor deleting the reviewed status on a 3RR report as "blatant vandalism"? I realize that this is a bit Wikilawyerly but WP:3RR#Reverting_vandalism refers to simple vandalism with a link to types of vandalism where "Changing people's comments" is listed. Was I truly wrong in my restoring of User:Robdurbar's status comment? (→Netscott) 11:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not obvious, which is why its best not to risk it. To me, "blatant vandalism" means inserting foo-bar-wibble into articles. There was nothing wrong with restoring Robs comment *once*; after that it would have been far better to contact him; or disucss it on 3RR talk William M. Connolley 11:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to 3RR talk? Now it's just noticeboard talk. When I encountered difficulties I documented what was occurring on ANI. Unfortunately no one responded in a timely fashion. From your language I'm gathering that you essentially agree that my reverts were genuinely to revert vandalism. (→Netscott) 11:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said you were right to revert once. I said it wasn't obvious. William M. Connolley 11:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't there used to be a 3RR talk page? I realize you said it wasn't obvious... which means that while it was vandalism I was reverting... it wasn't obvious. No? (→Netscott) 11:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Somehting weird happened to the 3RR talk. I've restored it William M. Connolley 12:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, William. As Netscott says, I did enquire, a couple of times, on the Deuterium threads on ANI yesterday about your reasons for blocking him for 12 hours. I certainly didn't assume you would reply--we all have a perfect right to be off line or busy--but since several people there seemed to be agreeing with your action I hoped somebody would point me to the part I felt I must be missing--the reason Netscott was thought to merit a block. Nobody did, though. If you have any time to spare today, I still wish you would explain it. Focusing on the irony of revert warring on the WP:3RR page of all places is more of a joke, surely? It's the rationale for the reverts that matters, but I know I don't have to tell you that. To my eyes Netscott was reverting obvious, glaring vandalism--the deceptive change of other users' posts over their sigs--the whole time, and so the 12-hour block of Netscott looks unfair to me. Your not shortening it when he promised to not edit the page again surprised me too. Please believe that I ask in good faith: is there something here I'm not seeing? My feeling is that you're more experienced in this field than I am (I try to give 3RR vios a wide berth unless they're forced on my attention), and I admire your work and your good judgment altogether, so I'm very willing to be instructed. Best, Bishonen | talk 13:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

To take the easy bit first, I was offline till nearly the end of the block, and didn't feel it was worth shortening thereafter. I didn't see the ANI thread - somehow (Natalina) the 3RR talk page got redir'd to it. In future the discussion should be on the t:3RR. I do feel that the entire edit war was silly, and should have been a discussion on talk instead. Now, the difficult bit: was Netscott reverting blatant vandalism? That depends on your eye: it was blatant to you, and Ns, but not to me. So I tend to take a rather strict line on this for 3RR (and its on User:William M. Connolley/3RR, though I don't know if anyone reads that): its only blatant and hence immune if its easy for anyone to tell its blatant William M. Connolley 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it, William. I understand your argument, it makes good strict-3RR sense, but it also kind of illustrates why I like to give 3RR vios a wide berth. I do block for 3RR sometimes, but I'd rather have blocked Deuterium for forging other users' comments in this case, as being the more repugnant offense, against the bigger principle. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC).