Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Backin72 (talk | contribs) at 05:31, 28 October 2006 (→KrishnaVindaloo: obstinate and uncollaborative: minor comment for the record). 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...

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.

The Two Balling

I understand your comment. I offered a rebuttal that you may accept. If you don't, and feel that repeating the name of a scientist twice is inconsistent I could merge the related issue (temperatures have not increased as much as the IPCC summary indicates) into the second one (temperatures have increased but due to unknown cause). However, for my part I'd rather have two Balling(s) than two very distinct issues comingled into one less meaningful and precise one. Sympa 22:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

WP:AN3

• The few times that I've dabbled in WP:ANI/3RR, I've tried to be fair, but I universally get hit with a barrage of malcontents on my talk page and others that send me threatening e-mails. I don't know why you continue to take care of this for us, but thank you for doing so, as I know that I wouldn't be able to last more than a day at it. Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 14:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :-) William M. Connolley 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

User:PPGMD

Thanks for your intervention here. Would you mind reverting this users subsequent (fifth) revert of Bowling for Columbine. I've used my three reverts for this article. Thanks. DJ Clayworth 20:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

BAS historical sidenote

We've stumbled over historic Antarctic exploration recently (which includes my wife and two elementary age daughters) seeing Scott and Amundsen's race in "The Last Place on Earth". Quite moving, even with the apparent anti-Scott bias of the producer/author (discovered later while checking out the journals of Scott ], Evans , Cherry-Garrard , and excerpts from Bowers, Lashly, etc). Gives one a sense that proper long range planning AND adjustments to perturbating events are extremely important; this understanding then translates well to the planning and actions needed to mitigate global climate change. Being an engineer who did a senior paper on global warming 2 decades ago, I've planned for this for some time: we have a passive solar home with 2kW of PV, 2 hybrid cars (though I bike, telecommute, and vanpool), energy efficient HVAC/appliances, and most importantly, a conservation mindset. And six weeks ago, I signed up to spread the word. RealClimate has been a ray of hope in a dark time (here ensconsed in U.S. politics, anyway). Keep up the good work, keep fighting the good fight.

We're now watching a Shackleton series (I saw a documentary last month, so I'll be the only one not surprised). It makes a case for how soft we've become in our carefully but wastefully controlled environs. Skyemoor 22:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note William M. Connolley 07:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thermohaline article

I think the "quite the reverse" phrasing is weasel. Can we change it to "other studies find the opposite." and cite it? Abe Froman 20:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Because you were a red person I rolled you back - perhaps a bit impolite. However - I don't think its a weasel phrase. I'll copy the discussion onto the page talk... William M. Connolley 21:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

William the.. Biased?

What do you think you are doing? Stop denying the truth for your own personal belifes. Stop removing real proven facts that I am contributing as to prevent even more ignorance in this world. "Zealotii 10:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)"

You're not contributing any facts. You're adding the word "theory" in an effort to push you anti-evolution POV. If you really want to fight over evolution, do it on the evolution pages, but better still just learn to live with it William M. Connolley 11:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am adding the word "theory" to prevent the increasing bias on wikipedia toward things that are not proven. What is your problem with this? "Zealotii 11:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)"

This seems to be the only way to contact you. Why did you not block KittenKlub who was deleting my backed up edits. She was warned and was rude see my page. 64.12.117.8 11:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again you have a double standard. Count Iblis reverted me 3 times you do nothing64.12.117.8 19:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tannim just continues reverting. You made a mistake with the ban

He just continues like nothing happened: KittenKlub 15:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not true, I have back up my edits. Now I have seen a purge of every article I have edited. I never got a reply on KittenKlub being blocked as that users deletes anything they don't agree with. Tannim 19:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

KittenKlub reveted my three times on Barbara Striesand. Will you know block that user?

Unlikely. You need 4R to be blocked, barring exceptional circumstances. Please settle down to and be happy William M. Connolley 14:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Siddiqui

The user who was blocked for 3RR violetion has started revert-warring again. He is stalking my edits and reverting them (see his contribs).What can be done here? Thanks.Hkelkar 15:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not committing 3RR.

Siddiqui 15:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

However, he is violating the "Electric Fence" philosophy and violating the spirit of 3RR (to discourage edit-warring).Hkelkar 15:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Plz see his contribs and mine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Siddiqui

Hkelkar 15:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh good grief. S, you get 1 week for wikistalking. See your talk page William M. Connolley 16:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui has emailed me. He knows he was wrong and begs your forgiveness. Fred Bauder 02:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See his talk page. I am unhappy with his response; however, if you wish to unblock him I will have no complaints William M. Connolley 12:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole

Could you please review my comments on User:Isarig's 3RR complaint on Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole? I have been involved there (somewhat marginally in editing the page, moreso in the discussions), so I don't want to make a decision one way or another, having already had one very bad experience. Nevertheless, for context you might want to look at the talk page for that article. Thanks. --CSTAR 22:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Actually, I urge you to look at the talk page, before making any determination. Thanks.--CSTAR 03:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This was a complex revert, in that User:Commodore Sloat's changes have spanned a time period where other changes have also taken place (including changes by him to other sections). Nevertheless, the relevant part is the footnote, which in the baseline version reads "The Middle East Quarterly characterizes its mission as follows: "In the halls of academe, the Quarterly delivers a welcome balance to the many materials that relentlessly attack the United States and Israel.", and to this version it has been identically reverted by User:Commodore Sloat 4 times, as the diffs show.

Thank you

• Thank you for your fair judgement regarding the 3RR violation of User Sm1969. Yours, Smeelgova 03:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

User:ParadoxTom

Hi. I thought you might have another look at the case of this user, who you blocked for 3RR. While he clearly violated 3RR, there was some stuff going on at Talk:Jews for Jesus where he was on the receiving end of some horrible attacks. Can I suggest that you might reduce his week block to a few days? DJ Clayworth 19:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

After a quick look, I can't see anything too terrible. I do see your name though. If you think you're familiar with whats going on, I'm very happy for you to revise the block downwards if you want to William M. Connolley 19:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The Templeton Foundation

The Templeton Foundation used to provide grants for ID conferences and courses. According to The New York Times, Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, later asked ID proponents to submit proposals for actual research. "They never came in," said Harper, and that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said. The Templeton Foundation has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding, Harper states. "They're political - that for us is problematic," and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth."

I'd think that while individual members/beneficiaries of the Foundation's largess may embrace ID, the the Foundation itself is trying to distance itself from the ID movement, but keeping in mind that the Discovery Institute, the hub of the ID movement, actively tries to cultivate ambiguity around its own motives, actions and members with the aim of portraying ID as more substantial and more widely accepted than it actually is, as the Dover Trial ruling shows (it's worth reading). FeloniousMonk 21:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats interesting and useful William M. Connolley 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you help?

I am having trouble with an anonymous editor (86.143.79.99) who keeps reverting an edit (to Phil Williams) and will not discuss. I have reported him for a 3RR violation which resulting in you blocking him for 24 hours.

Now he is using a sockpuppet (86.134.212.238) to carry on with his revert war. I have tried to make a sockpuppet complaint but fear I may have filled the paperwork incorrectly. In any case, I want to resolve rather than have a big administratie row about this. Can you advise/help on making a sockpuppet complaint or seeking a dispute resolution? tks. Normalmouth 10:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Normalmouth created a page in the wrong space (Encyclopedia) and then removed a speedy delete tag on it. I put a different speedy delete tag on it. Page is 86.143.79.99. Hu 10:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A bit of a mess. N, can you slow down, and put things in the right space. Accusing anons of socks doesn't really mean much anyway - just put notes on their talk pages linking them together. I'll semi the PW page William M. Connolley 11:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I'm rather inexperienced in all of this. How do I link the two pages together as you suggest? Normalmouth 11:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure you need to. But if you do, you ] the page header at the top William M. Connolley 12:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Group reverts

Hello William Connolley! Regarding reversions in Carnatic_music page, I wanted to send you the following message, but I couldn't since I was blocked. I know the action you've taken is technically correct.

I'm truly surprised by your action. I've not deleted anyone's edits. I've only tried to restore my edits which have repeatedly been revereted by a few. My constructive edits contained valuable information Examples:

   * A 7th Century stone inscription on Music in Kudumiyan Malai in Tamil Nadu
   * Name of the work containing the solfege, Narada Parivrajaka Upanishad
   * Solfege terms and their symbols used from pre-200 C.E and a reference to a work in 800 C.E.

I sought the help of User:Sundar, User:Venu62 and others. In every revert I requested to discuss. Did they do? Sadly no. I had given up restoring my edits and you'll see that I had only added more comments in the talk page and not tried to restore my edits before you decided to block me. I request you to remove this block, and I won't be editing anyways until some consensus is reached. If you investigate, you'll see who was doing the destructive reverts. --Aadal 23:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the only one trying to restore my edits. I think something needs to be done in group reversions. It seems to be a technique used by some people who want to push their edits and block other's edits. I know the arguments in content disputes, but then that should be discussed. I'm happy to note that Carnatic_music page is now protected. I really regret that I have received this block eventhough it was for 8 hours only.--Aadal 13:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If a group of people disagree with your edits, there is no point in trying to revert them out, so stick to WP:1RR and be happy. You need to get a consensus on the talk page; and if this fails, there is WP:DR William M. Connolley 14:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Linking to Copyrighted Texts, Burden of Investigation on the User

William, I have some issues with your dismissing the complaint and with your use of 3RR Sm1969 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know you have. I'm not going to go into the copyright issue - I don't know it well enough. I'm only dealing with 3RR. In my judgement, the copyright issue wasn't serious enough to warrant you breaking 3RR. If it *had* been serious enough, you still shouldn't have broken 3RR - you should have listed it on copyright infringements, or somesuch, and other people would have agreed with you and helped (or not, if they didn't). You path, now, if you want to take this further, is to get a definitive opinion from the copyright people (whoever they might be). But *please* stick to 3RR, it will make your editing so much happier William M. Connolley 18:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Jayjg 3RR

That looked like a 3RR violation to me. You determined that it wasn't without providing an explaination. I would appreciate one. Thanks. John Nagle 18:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You only listed 3 reverts. It needs 4 William M. Connolley 18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What can be done about Tannim. He just continues as IP

He reverted again on Barbra Streisand as 205.188.116.10 (=AOL IP.) and he times it to force me into 3RR. I'm getting very tired of these games to be honest. KittenKlub 20:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I can block that IP. You, of course, will stay strictly within 3RR William M. Connolley 20:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying but he makes it hard, because I specifically have to check the history again and again nowadays given the number of reverts he makes. The IP is an AOL and keeps on varying, so that will be of limited use and I've already asked for semi protection and it was denied. Thanks for the revert BTW. KittenKlub 20:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I humbly suggest that you *don't* check the history frequently. Stick to 1RR and be happy. Its really not that important William M. Connolley 20:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment on your comment :)

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

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

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

KrishnaVindaloo: obstinate and uncollaborative

KV has a long history of confrontations with other editors based on an uncollaborative spirit. While he is technically correct that "Consensus does not trump NPOV policy," the nature of editing at Misplaced Pages requires collaboration with other editors no matter what. Too bold editing, edit summaries, and edit warring, are not approved methods for Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes. The letter of the 3RR rule applies to edits within the same 24h period, but KV's refusal to collaborate leads to his continued attempts to edit the same points again and again, only avoiding blocking for 3RR violations because more time has elapsed, not because he isn't violating the spirit of the 3RR rule, which is to avoid edit wars and prevent refusal to collaborate.

His (mis)use of the Category:Pseudoscience label has been one of the most contentious issues he has been involved with, and which makes him run afoul of many other editors, including fellow skeptics. (To them, it isn't so much the subject of his edits, but his manner of doing it that's the problem.) He has been involved in discussions on this matter on many talk pages and has been repeatedly warned by other editors, but he seems to be incapable of learning and desisting his obstinate attempts to force his will on Misplaced Pages.

Regardless of whether he is correct in his particular edits (and I often agree with him), this type of editing is very destructive and time consuming. Something needs to be done, and a short block doesn't work with him. He actually slept through the recent one, which means it had no practical effect on his learning curve or on Misplaced Pages. Next time, a much longer block is necessary, at least 48 hrs. If he then shows no evidence of changed behavior, I suggest progressively severe blocks from weeks to months. He simply wastes too much of our time and Misplaced Pages bandwidth.

Here are a few examples just from the Chiropractic article:

When he writes this edit summary - "clear PS issues in the article. PS cat applies" - I believe he is correct, but until the Pseudoscience categorization issues are cleared up, his repeated efforts are destructive and must be stopped. -- Fyslee 08:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fyslee. KV comes to the PS article with the attitude of "I know these things, you don't" or "I know these things and you are just a POV pusher". While I too am a skeptic and do not necessarily have an intellectual disagreement with many of the things he wishes to label pseudoscience, KV's tactics for making these changes are simply unacceptable. He appears to abhor consensus, unless he can manufacture a very questionable faux-consensus (or perhaps it is merely that he does not understand the concept), but it any case more bytes have been wasted over arguing with him on Pseudoscience than are worth whatever occasional slight good might come out of the exchange.

He has managed, in his few months on the PS article to alienate virtually every other editor, and some have simply walked away in disgust. Of late, I have decided to take a break from active editing of the article as the discussions with KV prove to be fruitless. Counless editors have explained such guidelines/policies as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. In fact this last guideline is rather interesting in that KV engages in a faux-civility and has been called on the use of same by several editor. In some ways he reminds one of the friendly Stasi officer who uses civility to wear his victim down.

In addition his edits on the talk page tend to be quite contentious, as he frequently accuses other of doing precisely what he himself has adopted as a modus operandi . As Fyslee noted, KV attempts to force his will upon other, often brandishing obscure or old cites that appear to "prove" his POV, often while omitting the opposing view, or arguing against its inclusion.

Additionally, some the editors have felt intellectually detrayed or manipulated by KV's intellectual dishonesty -- see .

Clearly,, something needs to be done to resolve these issues. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. •Jim62sch• 09:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If he's a third columnist planted to undermine the credibility and reputation of science he's doing a damn fine job. What is extraordinary is his tenacious insistence that he alone is right, he needs no evidence for this, and anyone who says otherwise is motivated by prejudice or malice.Gleng 10:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. KV is a staunch defender of pseudoscience against the scientific consensus. I suggest an RfC, although there is an arb in process on this issue. Guy 10:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Name of the ArbCom case is misleading. The ArbCom case is about Plasma Cosmology, the Big Bang and whatsnot. But not about the article Pseudoscience and KV. BTW: Can pls somebody give diffs where KV defends pseudoscience? I'm not quite clear on this assessment. --Pjacobi 10:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Guy's assessment is sharp. KV claims that he is defending science, but in fact uses an utter lack of: objecivity, respect for reason, respect for other editors who disagree with him, or respect for the peer-reviewed literature. He shows no respect for the kind of cool rational objective argument that science should demand of those who speak in its name, and, in practice, acts exactly as we claim the irrational proponents of junk science act.Gleng 12:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

May be the case. But to repeat: Can pls somebody give diffs where KV defends pseudoscience? --Pjacobi 13:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think such exist; I've followed KV's contributions from early on. Guy's comments above make sense to me only in light of Gleng's interpretation.--Jim Butler 03:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I suspect Guy's comments above were sarcastic. -Jim Butler 05:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am of two minds here; on the one hand, his style of editing requires undue effort from others to incorporate him into the process...on the other hand, I have found that it is at least at times possible, though incredibly time-consuming, to accomplish the latter. I would encourage making it clear that he has to find a better modus operandi for the sake of editors' sanity (this could include blocks until he does so). Hgilbert 11:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Late to the discussion, adding my .02: I attempted to discuss an addition KV was making to the Pseudoscience article, which had been removed by at least one other editor. The addition made no sense to me. He rewrote it several times, apparently changing the meaning, and when the statement made sense I said "Works for me" with the addition that "so long as Christianson and Beckstead and Morrow meet notable / expert qualifications" - admittedly, I did not also state that the cites actually covered the statment. Rather than providing some information about his cites, his answer was "sure" and even though three editors asked for the cite, (Jim Butler, Steth, and myself) he used my name to brow-beat others that he had "satisfied the requirements when working with KillerChihuahua "! This in spite of the fact that I was still asking for information on the cites, whether they actually supported the statemnt, etc. He kept using my name to somehow assert that if other editors questioned him, they were questioning me. I had not endorsed his proposed addition, so why I was being used as some kind of prop is beyond me. This type of reasoning - getting one "ok" which is limited in scope, then applying it unilaterally to the entire subject - indicates a lack of care in putting forth effort to understand and comprehend others. Using my name as a supporter is an Argument from superior (actually less, but same logical error) numbers, which is inconsistant with KV's knowledge (and sometimes insistance) that consensus does not trump policy. In short, he shows a hasty and immature methodology, as he inconsistantly and opportunistically applies whatever reasoning will appear to assist in his goals, as opposed to whatever reasoning is applicable to the situation. His goal seems to be re-writing the article according to his understanding, with very little effort spared towards working productively with others, and virtually none given to respecting others who hold different views and understandings. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 14:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think pretty much all of the comments above are apt, and that some sort of sanction is warranted. KV struck me at the beginning as sincere but a little bit "dense" and difficult to reach; I'm now undecided as to whether his uncollaborativeness is a result of denseness of disingenuousness or both, but the net result is that it's very difficult to work with him. I completely appreciate that there exist good-faith differences over applying NPOV and VER to articles, but KV presses his views while doggedly refusing to acknowledge the substantive points made by other editors. (It's hard to lay out the specifics concisely, but recent e.g.'s can be found at Talk:Chiropractic here, where he ignores multiple editors' concerns about the notability of fringe use of chiropractic to "cure" homosexuality, and here, where he completely blows off other editors' concerns about the POV-ishness of using categories).

I presumed KV's good faith for quite awhile, but his recent obduracy regarding VER at Talk:Pseudoscience finally caused me to lose patience and faith in his capacity to collaborate. Jim62sch's observation above on faux-civility is right on the money, e.g. KV's reply to Kenosis here, as well as examples already cited from topic talk pages. Chiropractic and Pseudoscience have a number of thoughtful and collaborative editors, with a wide range of POV's, yet KV still insists that they are the problem. - Jim Butler 05:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Now KrishnaVindaloo has implied that editors who disagree with him are racist, which is completely unwarranted and quite a bizarre response to this post from another editor. Like you, William, I'm quite busy IRL, and I find KV's approach disruptive, disspiriting and a waste of precious time (as, apparently, do the vast majority of regular editors at pseudoscience and most at chiropractic). This isn't a situation where KV is the sole righteous defender of mainstream scientific POV, although he seems to believe he is; in fact he's alienated editors with a broad range of views on the subject, and has repeatedly ignored consensus over NPOV and VER, per e.g.'s above. Do have a look at this issue if you can, please. If you're too busy to look into this, I certainly understand; please just say so and in due course, if need be, I can raise it with another mod. Thanks much, Jim Butler 05:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess if he continues to annoy, then a user RFC is the next step. The comment you link is annoying, but if its a personal attack its a weak one. Perhaps you would be better off with a more active admin :-) William M. Connolley 08:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks! And much appreciation for your hard work at WP:AN3. cheers, Jim Butler 01:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Indents

No offense intended. I just noticed that there was only one indent instead of two, making it appear (at first glance) as a block quote from you, rather than comments by two editors. I had to reread it and wanted to save others the same irritation. -- Fyslee 10:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

But I was replying to the original - if you double indent it looks like I'm replying to the reply... William M. Connolley 15:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

ParadoxTom

FYI, I've unblocked this user so he can participate in mediation. I informed him that if he violates 1RR on Jews for Jesus I'll be imposing a community ban. Nandesuka 12:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK by me William M. Connolley 15:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Kdbuffalo

I'm sorry to bother you like this. Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs), who you blocked a few days ago, first edit back was to do the same revert that got him banned in the first place. Revision as of 20:58, 21 October 2006 basically identical to Revision as of 19:10, 12 October 2006. It's just frustrating dealing with an editor like this, so I don't know what else to do but 'tell' on him. If you have any words of advice or insite, I'd love to hear it. Thank you for all the work you do here as an admin.--Andrew c 03:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well at the moment its just one edit, so I wouldn't worry. If Kdb breaks 3RR, then he can be reported. If he just low-level reverts, its rather harder William M. Connolley 08:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Permanent Solution

Do you mind taking a proactive role in dealing with the user you recently 3RR-blocked? The user has quite a history behind him and his behavior remains unchanged... --Palffy 21:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan

User:NisarKand has - in addition to countless POV edits - broken the 3rr law. I've reported him, posting 4 of his recent 3RR edits. Tājik 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I have been drawn into a sockpuppet, etc. mess I want no part of surrounding User:Timmy12. Said user, who has an apparent history of tagging articles for various reasons with little or no reason, and has aggravated various people with said actions while refusing to read anything associated with the article in terms of references, rather simply posting annoying tags, etc. The article in question is Joseph Byrd, which Timmy12 has repeatedly tagged despite the fact the article has numerous inline citations and references listed at the bottom of the article from a variety of sources. After disputing Timmy12's tagging, they have labelled me as part of some cabal of people they've had an ongoing set of issues with I have nothing to do with. Timmy12 has now crossed any sense of good faith by reverting a significant number of inline citations I made to the page earlier today, just to attempt address an issue they raised I felt never existed in the first place, merely to repost their own citation tag that was inappropriate to begin with. I and others, from reviewing the history of Timmy12, have repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate with this person, who may or may not be a sockpuppet. The last revert by Timmy12 can be seen as nothing but vandalism, and this person should be suspended from continuing this kind of behavior. I found commentary on the citations discussion page from a link Timmy12 left on my talk page, but they don't follow what they insisted I read. Any and all assistance/advice you can provide would be helpful, this kind of behavior is absurd. I'd add, in this particular case, the material on the page has been verified not only via the numerous sources cited, but by Joseph Byrd himself, who has commented directly to me and others on the material provided, is a person I have known for some years and have published material about. I should also add I write for a major newspaper group and am a professional writer and researcher by trade. Thank you. Tvccs 04:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Surreptitious vandal

User:Splurtronics is engaged in surreptitious vandalism, using reasonable sounding edit summaries to cover misleading or bogus changes. I've given it a warning, and reverted a couple of instances, but I thought I should alert an admin. JQ 05:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped now? William M. Connolley 08:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's true. I misread the last date. Is there someone who specialises in dealing with this kind of thing?JQ 10:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Need help understanding 3RR

Hi William. Sorry to bother you. But could you explain to me more about 3RR? I thought the first 5 examples I listed which were within a 24h period qualified as reverts based on my reading of the policy. If you could go through them one by one here so as to explain to me which one's are reverts and which are not, I would very much appreciate it. This would help me to avoid engaging in untoward behaviour based on a misunderstanding of the policy. Thanks in advance. Tiamut 20:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Which ones do you mean? And if you want advice, its WP:1RR William M. Connolley 08:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi William. Thanks for the link. But I hoping that you could go through the decision you made on the 3RR report I filed just a couple of days ago against Isarig. I am asking because I want to make sure I don't waste people's time in the future with needless reports and it would help me greatly if you could go through the first 5 examples I listed as reverts and explain which constitute reverts and which do not. As I understand, even if the revert function is not used, but edits are made that revert changes anyway, these count as reverts. The five examples I listed were:

1st revert: 2nd revert: 3rd revert: 4th revert: 5th revert: Again, I appreciate your time. Thanks. Tiamut 11:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Have another go. This time instead of just "the 3RR report I filed just a couple of days ago against Isarig" include a link to its section. And instead of "1st revert: " (which I presume you've cut and pasted from the 3RR page) please include the actual diff itself William M. Connolley 12:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. Here is the link:. And here are the diffs:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert: Tiamut 21:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They don't resemble each other very much. If you want them to be reverts, you would have to demonstrate that each was a revert for its own reasons. Which would presumably need a "prev version" for each diff. They just look like edits William M. Connolley 22:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed that you blocked RolandC for his edits to the same article. See: . You said there that: "The rules clearly state that *unrelated* reverts count. So removing the unrelated comment counts. As does restoring only part of your edit William M. Connolley 15:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)" I believe the example I provided you is similar to this case. Is it simply that without the "prev version" you cannot make such a determination? Can I resubmit the report with such info, or does my lack of knowledge on the procedure (being the first time I use it) disqualify me from having the case reconsidered? Thank you. Tiamut 11:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is only that they have to obviously *be* reverts... and if they are unrelted, this will not be clear. It is certainly too late to resubmit the report now, simply because it is "stale" William M. Connolley 13:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then, I guess that's that. Thanks for your replies, good luck with everything. Tiamut 14:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, remember the 3RR is "preventative not punishment" - if it hasn't recurred, then good William M. Connolley 17:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, he continues to revert. But not more than 3 times per 24 hours. His preferred mode of collaborative editing IS reversion. But you've seen him listed on the page before and seen the comments for yourself. I guess the 3RR policy isn't quite up to preventing such editing behaviour. But as there is nothing else you can do, nor I, for that matter, I gues that's that. Thanks again. Tiamut 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

PSCs and Ozone

Re: rv: this is well known; I've added the FAQ source to the OD page now. Why are you being so aggressive about this?

If it's well known, I'm sure it can be cited. Per WP:CN, it shouldn't be assumed this fact is common knowledge. I'm not trying to be aggressive, but I'm pursuing this in order to improve the article. It seems to me this sentence could be better stated (along the lines of "they are known to enhance the rate of ozone hole creation" since PSCs are not required for depletion). But sources would help with the process of analyzing this assertion, as well as provide credibility for the article (another user on the talk page asked about evidence of a link). Thanks, skew-t 10:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be cited. And indeed it is in the FAQ. It seemed to me that you were pushing this rather hard, and it could have been done rather more smoothly on the talk page. But anyway... I think that PSCs are fairly well required for an ozone hole, though not for lower levels of depletion. Looking in the FAQ should provide all you need, including refs William M. Connolley 11:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems with User:NisarKand

Hi admin. Could you please have a look at the article Afghanistan where User:NisarKand is continuing to flood the page with POV and unsourced writings?!

Just have a look at edit and his comment at the bottom. That's clearly POV. Comments like "However, the Encyclopaedia of Islam clearly contradicts because according to the memoirs of Babur (dated 1525 A.D.), a region or land called "Afghanistan" had existed way before the middle 18th century. So we will never know the truth" are not encyclopaedic and should be removed!

He has not even reacted to the talk page.

He had already broken the 3RR, and he is going to violate it again.

Tājik 21:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If he breaks 3rr, then report him... William M. Connolley 21:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

He has once again - after not even 24 hours - violated against the 3RR. And I have reported him. But it's not just the 3RR. He is really vandalising the page with his POV, totally unsourced. He is even disputing authoritative sources, such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam - a masterpiece written by more than 400 experts around the world. It's totally hopeless. This is not just my opinion. Tājik 23:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Scientific citation guidelines

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

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