User talk:William M. Connolley/Old talk 13

Image of the tidal forces

Hi, I think the direction of the arrows in Image:Tidal-forces-calculated.png should be reversed. Furthermore in many articles the moon is assumed to be on the right. Therefore a version with left and right reversed is also of interest. If you like to make new versions a better resolution like 800x800 could be interesting to make the small difference on both sides of the earth visible. --Wolfgangbeyer 12:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but, I don't see how the arrows can be reversed. The field is generated at the bottom, hence is stronger at the bottom of the picture than in the middle, hence the arrows at the bottom must point down, towards the field generator. No? But if we can sort that out, I have no objection to making a higher-rez version. William M. Connolley 19:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC).

Sorry for my mistake assuming the generator of the field to the left of the center instead at the bottom. --Wolfgangbeyer 22:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Aha :-) OK, in that case I'll see about redrawing them at a better rez "soon" - William M. Connolley 22:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC).

I've done a higher rez one. You still can't see the asymm, but it is prettier. I've just realised that BD had rotated the pic, but not changed all the caption, so your LR/TB confusion is understandable! William M. Connolley 22:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:V citations

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 08:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Thanks for the notification. William M. Connolley 12:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC).

Stubai Alps pictures

Hello, I found some great pictures of the Stubai Alps you added over a year ago to the English Wikipedia (Image:Dscn3342-ls 1200x900.jpg, Image:Dscn3305-lfk-from-rotgrat 1200x900.jpg, Image:Dscn3308-rg-e-from-w 900x500.jpg). I have uploaded them to WikiCommons, as you may already have seen in your watchlist. I tagged the files at the English Wikipedia as {{NowCommonsThis}}, but I have no idea whether I have to mention them somewhere for deletion, as I am not aware of these procedures on the en: Wikipedia. Could you perhaps also check whether I uploaded them correctly to Commons and whether I tagged them over here well as well? Thank you very much! Greetings from Leiden, Tubantia 14:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, glad you liked them, and thanks for uploading them to commons. I must start doing that sometime... I'll check them out on en: William M. Connolley 14:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

Hmm, I did nothing about this but they are now deleted from en: and appear to be there automagically from commons. I wish I knew how that works... William M. Connolley 20:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

Hi Dr. Connolley, I replied to your comments with a few examples of phrasing that has been used in (somewhat) analogous situations to cold fusion. You might want to take a look. -- Pakaran 23:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll go look. William M. Connolley 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

WP:FRINGE

Hi there. The AFD/DRV debate about Aetherometry inspired me to try and hack together some proposed guidelines about fringe theories. I saw you were an active and thoughtful participant in that debate, and thought I would solicit your comments and hopefully suggestions and edits. At the moment the page is at WP:FRINGE for lack of a better name. Thanks for your time if you can lend any. --Fastfission 17:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a good start. I'll comment a bit later. William M. Connolley 17:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

Tesla phile stuff

I only rewrote the Tesla stuff to remove bias and put in his relative pennyless status at death. I believe that the Edison controversy surrounding AC and DC involve at least two people: Westinghouse and Tesla. It's been the topic of PBS American Experience shows.````John wesley 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, I get a bit trigger-happy on the teslaphile stuff... try checking out Nikola Tesla sometime, if you can stand the gushing pro-T prose :-) William M. Connolley 21:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can just put a link to every Tesla related event in big articles so that Tesla loving people can go there and just have no more than a phrase in the main article. I just looked at the Tesla article itself and man is it huge; it compares well with really importanmt people like former PM Pierre Elliot Trudeau. John wesley 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Tesla really is really important person. One of the SI-derived units has his name. Sorry for dissapointing you! Can you explain why you removed work relations paragraph explaining how Edison did't pay Tesla. Why is that irrelevant. Isn't that work realation? Lakinekaki

There is endless pro-tesla spam on the Tesla page by people who think that Tesla is the Greatest Unsung Genius In The Known Universe. Please keep it out of the rest of wiki. William M. Connolley 09:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

I asked you very specific question about Edison page. If you don't like Tesla page, you are welcome to edit it. It is coincidence that I know that Edison didn't pay Tesla for his work. Maybe he also didn't pay many other people, but I know only about the Tesla case. You may not like this coincidence, but that is your problem. In the same time, that is Edisons work relation. Lakinekaki

How do you know? If you know, why isn't it cited on the page? William M. Connolley 18:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

It's on PBS movie among other sources [1]. Lakinekaki

But is that page reliable? Why don't we try pasting "the greatest electrical engineer in the world—Thomas Alva Edison." into the Tesla page, then when the Teslaphiles object we say "ah but its on PBS"... And anyway, the page says: "Tesla claimed that Edison promised him $50,000". So its quite clear that the source for this annecdote is Tesla, unsupported. Now... is it just possible that Tesla had feelings of ill-will towards Edison? Might he have reason to make up this claim? William M. Connolley 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

It is verifiable, isn't it. Maybe you are just being Edisonphile! Ever thought about that?

(Bios bit moved to Talk:Bios theory - William M. Connolley 19:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Did geophysical research letters really become famous in 2005?

I note that User:Lumidek created the article Geophysical Research Letters, which states: "In 2005 it has become famous for publishing articles about climate science representing a broad variety of viewpoints including the analyses by researchers known as climate sceptics such as Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick." Is this really true? It seems extremely unlikely to me that a journal would become famous for publishing a single paper. You are clearly the expert on this subject here so I thought I'd ask you. --Pierremenard 06:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've answered over there. William M. Connolley 09:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

3rr (boothy443)

[nb: this conversation moved here from Evrik's page by Evrik. Which is OK, but I do wish people would read the note at the top of this page! - WMC]

• Please read up on WP:3RR - its 4 *in 24h*. Also... exactly *what* does this have to do with the arbcomm case. Do you expect the admins to guess? William M. Connolley 20:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The last set of edits he made were four in 33 hours. Isn't there part of the rule that talks about gaming the system?evrik 20:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • 4 in 33h is pretty weak by 3RR standards. If he has been reverting that page for days on end, then maybe. But you have to make a special case in that case - you can't just report 4 in 33h and expect people to read it on it!
    • Having actually looked at that history, I see a long revert war between you and Boothy. I don't see *any* talk at all on this issue! Come on, why are you acting any better in this than Boothy? You need to... find someone else who cares about this and invite them onto the talk page to discuss it William M. Connolley 21:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC).
      • I have tried to have the issue mediated ... it is really a tiny issue, but I'm tired of Boothy and refuse to be bullied by him.evrik

Talk:Aetherometry

The closing admin's comments are dubious, and the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion clearly state that "Talk pages of already deleted pages, unless they contain the deletion discussion and it isn't logged elsewhere" should be speedily deleted. I'm more than a little concerned that you undid my delete before asking me about it. I'll delete it again, in line with Wikipedia official policy. I can't think of any genuine reason to leave it, frankly. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you perhaps stop and talk about this a bit first, please? There is plenty of useful material in those talk pages, have you considered just why Helicoid is so keen to get rid of them? William M. Connolley 22:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

I'm copying the talk material to my userspace. Pardon for a while I restore and redelete. I don't completely agree with the deletion but I agree we have to take it off the main article talk space. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I can't exactly see the point in simply moving it elsewhere. In fact I can't see the point in deleting at all, this is rampant deletionism for no reason. Sigh. William M. Connolley 22:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

I deleted the redirect to my userspace. Should I restore it, or should it remain there? I took this as a possible win-win solution (not for the aetherometrists, of course) but it is of course fairly reversable. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did you put it? Oh, User:Natalinasmpf/aetherometry_discussion (good; now I have a link to it!). Ummm... well, given that I don't know why the page had to die in the first place, I find it hard to guess as to whether the redirect has do die. Making the best guess I can, the official policy is that no page called "Talk:aetherometry" is allowed to exist. So I suppose that means the redirect must die too. William M. Connolley 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

Special:Undelete/Talk:Aetherometry - might be useful; I'll put it here William M. Connolley 22:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

"I can't think of any genuine reason to leave it, frankly." --Mel Etitis. The reason it must remain is that Correa, Correa, and Askanas, Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance [2] and AntiWikipedia 2: Rise of the Latrines are based on it, but their account is incomplete. The full account must remain so that those (if any) who wish to know what really was said can read the full version. In this case, wikipedia policy for speedy deletion is wrong. GangofOne 23:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Mel is deliberately ignoring the discussion here, so you might want to post that on his page :-) William M. Connolley 23:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

Glacier retreat

I requested a peer review for the article Glacier retreat that you assisted on. You can add whatever you wish to the conversation at the article discussion page or at the following link: review/Glacier retreat/archive1 I appreciate your thoughts on this matter.--MONGO 10:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Easier link...Wikipedia:Peer review/Glacier retreat/archive1--MONGO 10:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Good decision, but you sure he's blocked? I'm not seeing it.Gator (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Disregard. Thanks.Gator (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, its done now! There was some confusion... William M. Connolley 17:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

Robsteadman

I just put in a 48 hour block on him since this was his second violation. If it's OK with you, I'd like to undo yours so that the longer block stands. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Yes and no. Yes, I'm happy for you to modify my block - please use your judgement as you see fit, and undo mine if needed. OTOH 48h for a second offence is probably a bit extreme. OTOH again, his edit comments etc seem rather extreme, and he went well over 3RR, and he removes the previous stuff from his talk page. So... all in all, over to you. William M. Connolley 17:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

Please feel free to fully examine my behavior in this matter. I stand by my edits and have nothing to hide. You (and howcheng) did the right thing.Gator (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I instituted the 48 hour block. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. On yet another hand, a quick scan of the history indicates Gator1 may be in trouble, though I don't assert that for certain. I have some history with him re John Lott, so I'm not going to investigate with a view to blocking; but you might want to consider it. William M. Connolley 17:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

That's fine, I stand by my edits and know I never violated any 3RR rule or anything else. I don't remember you on the Lott page, but I stand by my work there too. I worked hard to edit that article and be civil in the face of some users and I am proud of the result. Good working with you. See you around.Gator (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

On your Adminship. I wasn't around to support you by my vote, but I just saw the overwhelming outpouring of support by many outstanding WP contributors, support which you certainly merit. --CSTAR 01:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the time and effort you spent investigating Eggster and some of his sock puppets; it's hard to show conclusive proof regarding things like that. I was writing up a long thing where I compared IP subnet locations and all that (almost all of the edits on his two articles are from the same neighborhood), and looked at my watch list and noticed that while I was still writing it, Jlambert on his talk page demonstrated it much better than I would have. But, you still did have to do some significant research on your own I think, thanks for that. --Atari2600tim 22:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Now he's created "Young Zaphod" and is using IPs from the same network as before and I posted it to the 3rr notice board, but I don't know an easy way to explain the details quickly for someone else to understand the situation :P I hoped referring to the Eggster thing (which hasn't been archived yet) and showing some links (such as Young Zaphod signing messages written by the IP) would be explanation enough, but apparently isn't. Somebody commented on it, and I think they're saying I should warn every new username he uses regardless of how obvious he gets, even if he distributes his reverts to keep them under 4 for each persona, and also do unending CheckUser requests... ugh. That makes me even more appreciative of earlier! Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict fun :-)

Hi William, we've done it again. The anon. stuff on James Lovelock - while I was thinking you took it out unbekownst to me. I moved part to controversy - then after googling took it out, only to find that you had already moved it to talk. Fun, I added a link to a quote from the book to the talk page - wacky stuff indeed.

Aha, I was too fast for you :-) I've replied there.

I see you've been enjoying your mop powers! Cheers, Vsmith 00:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, no great complaints so far! William M. Connolley 11:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

CO2 - Temperature lag

The 800 year offset claim should probably be sourced to Caillon et al. (Science 2003 [3]), where they state it as 800+/-200 years during termination III. This is consistent with, but claims greater precision than, previous work in the field, such as Monnin et al. (Science 2001 [4]) which claims 800+/-600 years for Termination I and Fischer et al. (Science 1999 [5]) that argues for CO2 maxima occuring 600+/-400 years after temperature maxima in each of the last three terminations.

Caillon's work is heavily picked up by climate sceptics who argue that the lag implies CO2 does not drive climate. If you have a good place to discuss it, feel free, but it probably needs to be discussed with some care to make sure it accurately reflects the science.

See also: RealClimate

Dragons flight 20:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... I thought you might contribute! The problem is the care needed and the obvious possibility of misinterpretation. But it would be good to have it mentioned properly. I suspect this is rather closer to your field than mine, though I know people... William M. Connolley 21:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

Regarding Agapetos angel

AA has tried to pull a fast one on all of us here. As it turns out, as I eariler suspected, she's an outside, involved party at Jonathan Sarfati and Answers in_Genesis - she's Sarfati's wife!

I'd warned her 2 weeks ago that as a matter of policy and arbcomm precedent editors who are personally involved in a topic generally should not edit on those topics. [6] She'd implied time and again that she wasn't an involved party and instead accused others of misdeeds. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Per WP:AGF I gave her the benefit of the doubt. Today I found the above evidence indicating that she intentionally deceived us. Being married or otherwise related to Sarfati means that she is precluded from editing on these topics by policy and arbcomm precedent. If she hadn't been so blatantly pov and disruptive she'd likely been able to argue an exception here, but her multiple 3RR vios and NPA vios against Guettarda, taken with the intentional deceit implicit in her hiding her relationship to Jonathan Sarfati are all the evidence we need that she cannot participate neutrally on these topics. FeloniousMonk 02:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, seems reasonable. Have you informed her, and/or put a comment on the JS talk page? William M. Connolley 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

I did both, first at her talk page, then at the articles whose topics she's intimately involved with and disruptive. She removed those on her talk page herself and reported it as harrassement at AN/I, resulting in discussion here, and here. At AN, consensus is that the infoboxes I posted were not a Good Idea and be removed and instead that she be blocked for disruption should her editing disruptively continue, which it has sadly [12]. She still continues to attempt to mislead the community, refusing to answer the question whether she is his wife when asked outright by an uninvolved party here: [13] FeloniousMonk 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the agressive edit on AA's talk page. For the record i do not support her at all. I just thought it might lead to retributions and inflame an already bad situation. In retrospect I should have mentioned it to you first. Live and learn. David D. (Talk) 19:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I hadn't read the above; and Sannse's appeal on ANI, before I responded. After that I reconsidered. Thanks for your note here. William M. Connolley 22:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

RealClimate and the "hockey team"

Hi. Thanks for removing my sentence about the "hockey team" from the article. I got the wrong impression from comment 9 here, and took "Hockey Team: 2, MM: 0" (in the post I linked to in that sentence) to be about two 'teams'. I knew that Prof Mann originally used the term to mean the temperature reconstructions rather than the reconstructors (so to speak) -- see his response to comment 14 here -- but was under the impression that the RC bloggers had moved to using the term for themselves. Obviously I was wrong. Chris Chittleborough 04:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. There is, perhaps, a vague association that might be called the Hockey Team, though AFAIK thats the only mention of it, and clearly not a serious one. But RealClimate clearly isn't that team - most of us have nothing to do with Palaeo stuff! In this you may have fallen victim to the assertions thrown around somewhat casually by the Dark Side :-) William M. Connolley 17:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Insulting

It is not nice calling my actions "spite". If you are not confused by article, maybe you could use your intellect and explain to me what I do not understand, and what you find very clear. (instead of conducting personal attacks) Lakinekaki

Please stop being silly. William M. Connolley 20:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Willconnolly

User:Willconnolly is not you but shares a similar name, wishes to contribute, and appears to be acting in good faith. I have unblocked him. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I vaguely remember someone else blocking him, but if he is genuine, fair enough. I do recall briefly stealing

This user contributes using a cake

from him... William M. Connolley 22:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

Tesla Discussion

Hello. I know you are attempting to make the Tesla article more authetic by your deletions of the "claimed inventions" and I know you think that some of the wording in the article is the work of Tesla-obsessed editors, which some might be, but I think that some of your deletions need to be reassessed despite their good intentions. First off, how is claiming that Tesla was "recognized among the most innovative engineers" any more "gushing" than claiming Euler is one of the greatest mathematican of all time, when both statements have significant support? The wording in the introduction couldn't be edited to be any more prude than it is. Using "of profound genius" in an article is a common practice and has been used on Gauss, Newton, Einstein and many other articles due to the subject's pioneering of a field. "One of the greatest scientist of technological innovation" is nothing close to saying "THE greatest" or even "considered the best", which would be bad POV. Stating "one of the greatest" is among the most commonly used terms for pioneers of a field on biographical articles (Michael Faraday article is a singular example). I will revert one more time in hopes that this explanation will show you why the information is fair and balanced. Also, deleted references were added in between and blindly reverted, so I will restore those too. If you wish to revert again, do so manually so these won't have to be readded. Thank you for any response and I hope we can reach a compromise. 72.144.147.32 23:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to equate Tesla with Newton, Einstein of Gauss just won't work. He was a clever chap - brilliant event - but not in their league. William M. Connolley 21:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

First of all, I was simply giving examples of praise-heavy articles. Check any article for a pioneer in a field and you are likely to find "one of the greatest" in the article. Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but whether he is or is not in their league is POV on your part, and is irrelevant to the statement of being "one of the greatest innovators of his time". My main point was to show you the double-standard of calling Faraday, Euler, and Gauss among the greatest of their respective fields of study but not allotting the same to an inventor paralled with Edison (who by the way, has had "one of the greatest" in his article). I see this as proof enough. 72.144.147.32

Sock puppets

Before you go plastering "sock puppet" on user pages perhaps you should have the courtesy to contact all the users affected by your accusations. You should also learn more about computers and networks. I am married to TheShriek so we share an IP address even though we work from separate computers. I used to be a system manager and DBA so I stupidly believe that username/password combinations are personal so I'm unable to log on as him to change the message on his user page - I can only do it from the SOPHIA account and that will look like I've got something to hide (he is away on business at the moment). Someone else has changed your accusation to "married to" but quite frankly I think it's no ones business who I'm related to. I vote separately at a general election and disagree with my husband on some issues so am an independant free thinking editor. In this day and age I resent being seen as an "attachment" to my husband. I'm new to wiki but I intend to find out how to complain about you as an admin as you have acted rashly without full knowledge of the situation and let the assumptions of those who set you on this "sock quest" colour your actions. When you have special privileges you must be all the more careful before you use them - having been employed to do "admin" type work in the "real" world - you would have beeen disciplined or sacked for making false accusations that undermine the credibility of other users. SOPHIA 08:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My edit was based on the checkuser result, now archived at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Archive/February_2006. We have, as you know, problems with sockpuppets; two editors from one IP is by default sockpuppetry. Quite why you think I see you as an "attachment" to your husband I don't know; in fact I classed you the other way round. As you say, you're new to wiki, so I suggest you don't get too carried away: I do have some special priviledges, but haven't used them: checkuser is a far more limited priviledge; follow the link I've given you. But, nonetheless, I apologise for my mistake. William M. Connolley 18:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

Again I think you need to learn more about WP:SOCK and computers in general. The rules say one "user" editing from another account to evade blocks or gain multiple reverts is a sock. There was NEVER any suggestion that that happened in mine and my husband's case. One user can have multiple accounts if they use them carefully quite legitimately

WP:SOCK DOES NOT SAY THAT "TWO EDITORS FROM ONE IP IS BY DEFAULT SOCKPUPPETRY".

I have spent a good deal of time last night and this morning explaining myself and trying to shake of the "sock" label - well done - with the above quote you just confirmed my worst fears that other editors will view it as you do thus undermining my edits. Why shouldn't I get carried away? You have embroiled me in a mess not of my making for the simple fact that you couldn't be bothered to contact me first.

A "user" is not the same as an IP address. Your reply convinces me all the more that you are unsuitable to be an admin as you have demonstrated ignorance of the rules and how a network functions as well as a rash impuse to act without full knowledge of a situation. SOPHIA 18:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Calm down, get back to useful editing, and read what I wrote above. Two editors who turn out to share the same IP and who have edited the same controversial article will, by default, be generally considered the same editor. Quite why you are ranting at me about this I'm unsure - it wasn't my judegement: read the checkuser page. William M. Connolley 21:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

I am "ranting" at you because you added the message to User:TheShriek - now apparently on hearsay. I'm stunned that you think it's a trivial matter to undermine another editor - effectively calling them dishonest. You show no understanding of the time and credibility this has cost me. Are we adding a lack of empathy to the list of reasons why you shouldn't be an admin? SOPHIA 01:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The Sock Puppet here! Appology accepted. My only comment William is that you should try and avoid being manuipulated.

A comment for general consumption, before the usual culprits start casting assertions in an attempt to silence people/information, they REALLY should get their facts right (something I know they struggle with). A Network 101 course on basic IP networking, covering the use of IP routers, and the defacto practice (with IPV4) of using private addresses behind a public networks will explain all. When we've all adopted IPV6 the issue of address re-use will nolonger be a requirement/issue for any internet user (home or multi-national company).

TheShriek 19:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The unwanted network advice is unwelcome, however. William M. Connolley 21:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

I've received a message from Sophia, asking you to read WP:SOCK (don't shoot the messenger!) Sceptre ^(Talk) 21:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that she isn't bored with this nonsense yet. And confused why she can't leave her own messages... is she banned or something? Never mind. I promise not to shoot you, just be a bit sarcastic :-) I found the RFA BTW and had a quick browse. If anyone ever informed me, I didn't notice William M. Connolley 21:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

To add to this, as the Arbitrator who performed the CheckUser: an IP match is only part of a sockpuppet identification. Plus, using multiple IDs is not prohibited so long as they're not used disruptively. You really shouldn't be slapping {{sockpuppet}} on user pages when there's not proof of disruption. SOPHIA/TheShriek were cleared of being Giovanni33 socks, after all. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you have your tenses wrong. I put the tag on immeadiately after your identification and well before the "clearing" William M. Connolley 09:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

ENSO

I was just going to change the wikilink ENSO to El Nino Southern Oscillation and wondered if you had an opinion... thanks! Mostlyharmless 22:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. For extra points, you can put in the tilda over the "n"! William M. Connolley 22:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I love the Tilde so that shouldn't be a problem... Mostlyharmless 18:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Because I noticed...

Re: [14]. The guideline you're looking for is Wikipedia:Autobiography, and some ArbCom cases which may be of interest include this one and this one. Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ta! William M. Connolley 23:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 00:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My 3RR report

I must put up 50 warnings a day on talk pages when RC patrolling, and I went and forgot on this guy. I must've got distracted by all the cutting and pasting (so much simpler reporting simple vandalism :)). Sorry. - dharmabum 00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem :-) William M. Connolley 10:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

JA/AA/Bio

Jonathan Sarfati

Hi William, the best way to proceed is to make sure that all edits conform to WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:LIVING. In the case of a living person, we should try to be sensitive to their concerns, and if something bothers them and isn't particularly notable, we should consider removing it. I don't know what all the issues are, but I notice, for example, that someone keeps adding his wife's name, including her maiden or previous name, and someone else keeps removing it. Speaking for myself, I would remove it. There's no indication that she's notable, it doesn't add anything to the article, and the article isn't about her. The arbcom didn't rule absolutely that people shouldn't edit their own bios; it just urged caution. But it also urged caution against coming down hard on people who do this, especially when they're newbies, because it's understandable for someone to get upset when their own (or husband's) bio is the issue.

If you make sure that anything irrelevant is removed, and that everything relevant is carefully sourced to credible, published sources, and AA is still removing material, then probably an RfC or mediation is the next step. I've put up a subpage for her at Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/dispute where she can list all the issues if she wants to; so far, someone has put up one sentence they object to (about the Internet troll allegation). Maybe if you could persuade her to list her concerns on that page, it might help to sort things out. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how I'm going to proceed over this. I'm watching, but don't particularly want to edit it. Really I don't care about the content; I know nothing about him or her: I'm only here because of the 3RR stuff originally; and now I'm curious how it plays out policy-wise. William M. Connolley 10:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUTO

"Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned. Such articles frequently violate neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. Contribute on the talk page instead. Feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself."

WP:BLP: "You should not write about yourself, since objectivity on the subject is hard — but you can assist by providing references, by challenging unsourced statements, and by assisting other editors. The appropriate place for such communication is the talk page of the article concerned. Although you might want to draw attention to any concerns by leaving a brief note on the talk pages of particular editors, lengthy discussions anywhere else than the article talk page will likely go un-noticed.Persistent problems with other users should be dealt with through the dispute resolution process."

Common sense says that such cautions extend to the wives of article subjects as well. FeloniousMonk 01:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added "or your relatives" to [{WP:AUTO]] last night and no-one has complained yet William M. Connolley 10:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Well, it was perhaps only a matter of time: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agapetos angel William M. Connolley 10:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

congrats, though belated

wmc, You may remember me from Scientific Method where I hung in as long as I could manage before going on to things less injurious to my blood pressure. Some things are too much to take, for too long. A Wikibreak was indicated...

I have only stumbled -- way too late -- on your admin nomination and election/appointment. Had I known you were interested, I'd probably have nominated you for it, and sainthood too, while we were wrestling dragons at scientific method. Should have asked, I guess. Glad to have you aboard as an admin.

I whisked through some of the comment re your admin nomination, and am amazed that there would be such a hub-bub. The wmc I knew was a gentleman if somewhat exasperated on occasion. Anyway, I would have supported you with no reservation, and have no idea what FZ or aetherometry are about.

Best wishes in your new role here and generally. ww 09:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - the longer you don't know what aetherometry is, the happier you will be. I'm out of philosophy for the moment (except Hobbes) for the less stressful grounds of global warming and 3RR patrol :-) William M. Connolley 10:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Wrestling w/ dragons will do that for you. I did warn you... Is the recently discovered much higher loss rate for the Greenland ice capmean I should start shopping for land higher than 500' ASL? The obtuse blindness of politicians and business folk to facts (or to be entirely accurate, first order deductions / expectations from facts) is astonishing. But McKay's Extradordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (think that's the right title) documents a long history of self destructive (and to others) delusions, so it may be a characteristic of human nature. Tulips??!!! Can't wait till we get off this planet and have all our eggs (intended phrase) in more than one basket.

Best wishes. ww 16:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I need to check out the new Greenland stuff sometime soon. But melting Greenalnd is slow... William M. Connolley 17:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Coriolis effect

You don't like this article, it seems, to the extent of an NPOV tag. Yet its really not clear why. I hope you are going to justify it. William M. Connolley 15:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

If it's any consolation, it's because of the influence of Cleon. Everything you tell him on the Talk page is right, and yet there's still the influence of his wrong-headedness in parts of the article. Half the discussion in the "physical" version mistakes the Coriolis effect for the beta effect. The Coriolis effect works on a f-plane, and f-planes don't know the difference between North-South and East-West. Any description of Coriolis that assumes sphericity or distinguishes North from East is describing a different effect. -- GWO

That is some consolation. Perhaps I should have read this before removing the tag from the page :-( Anyway, the best thing to do would be to just clean it up a bit - it doesn't need the tag. William M. Connolley 19:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Re: The parabolic surface on a rotating tank. One observes this when the fluid is fully spun up, and in rigid-body rotation (i.e. u=0). Doesn't this tell us that the fictitious force involved is self-evidently not Coriolis. -- GWO

Arguably thats a bit confusingly written. The force that *forms* the parabolic shape is not coriolis; the force experienced when a particle moves on the sfc so formed is. William M. Connolley 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

OK. So far so good. I think that reads better now, but welcome further editing. Next : inertial circles - If the force balance is really between Coriolis and centrifugal force, why doesn't R come into the calculation? And why can you see them on a parabolic turntable, when you've gone to all that trouble of setting the centrifugal forces to zero? -- Oh, I see know, but that really is badly phrased. Having spent so long talking about centrifugal force (relative to the Earth's axis), it's really confusing to use it here to mean "central to the inertial circle itself". And it's not really a force balance at all -- the Coriolis force is accelerating the particle round in a circle, just like gravity pulls the Earth round in an orbit, or (more accurately), how a magnetic field distorts the path of a charged particle. -- GWO

Incidentally, the Coriolis/centripetal confusion occurs some more at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect

Schematic representation of a puck moving over a parabolical surface. When the centripetal force causes the puck to move closer to the center of attraction the centripetal force is accelerating the puck, so the angular velocity of the puck increases. This is an example of the coriolis effect.

AAARRRGHHH!!! -- GWO

Ah, I hadn't checked out commons. Hey ho. "parabolical", eh, I can see why you are so wound up - it clearly should be "parabolic" :-). Anyway, probably best to put further talk over at CE itself? I'll leave you a question there. William M. Connolley 19:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

Answer

Re your email about Current events: I've just had a look at the diffs and I can't see how you can defend yourself: that seems a clear break of 3rr. Sorry. William M. Connolley 15:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

As I clearly indicated in the email, I acknowledge that I had broken the 3RR. The complaint was about the fact that I had apologized and immediately stopped editing when someone listed me for 3rr without any warning. I was warned by an admin who then, 7 hourse afterwards, when I complained about another editor's 6th revert blocked BOTH of us. Please do not edit my talk page any more as I have chosen to withdraw from the project. 84.59.79.243 17:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (formerly Get-back-world-respect)

I'm sorry to see you go. If its just because of this one incident, I think you are making a mistake. One 3RR block is just not that terrible. As to your issue: being blocked afterwards sounds tough. Some admins wouldn't have done that. But you shouldn't complain too much if it happens. William M. Connolley 19:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

It is not just that. It is the general tendency here. Interests groups here are allowed to dominate pages. Some continuously delete all content related to the fact that some people regard area bombing a war crime or crime against humanity. One user has been dominating all related pages for a long time and even insisted for several months that Bomber Harris should not be portrayed as a controversial figure. I once saw a similar phenomenon at pages related to pedophilia, where outspoken pedophiles insisted that sex with minors was shown to do no harm to them. It got so ugly I just decided to stop editing anything connected to that. If I stop editing everything connected to politics I do not regard this as an encyclopedia any longer. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was dominated by three guys from the US military, and ever since I saw the point of someone complaining and asked some others if they might want to have a look at the page - I did not even interfere myself - Swatjester follows me wherever I go, makes unfounded accusations and even listed me for vandalism - consisting of deleting comments from my talk page, as many users frequently do. He was told by several others that I have the right to delete comments, however, some mud always sticks. Just look what they have done to my talk page. Policy clearly says users can leave and have their pages deleted. Mine is now "blocked for vandalism". Mediation refused, arbitration seems to get rejected. People should not be allowed to shoo others away. 84.59.114.156 16:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you've now formally left: 2006-02-16 05:56:52 UninvitedCompany deleted "User:Get-back-world-respect" ... I do not like wikipedia any longer ... User has left project. Deleted per user request.. Does that close the case? Sorry to sound rather uncaring, but if you're really permanently gone, there is no more to say. OTOH if you are thinking of coming back, let me know. William M. Connolley 19:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

Kurdish people

The page is vandalised I could not revert it because of 3RR. Please if you have time check and revert it. Thanks Diyako Talk + 19:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The page is *not* vandalised; the page is subject to an edit war over content. I'm looking at the 3RR. William M. Connolley 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

3rr noticeboard

Thanks for checking that out. Do you think 3RRs against anon users attract less attention? Thanks, OhNoitsJamie^Talk 16:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A little bit; but plenty get blocked for it. Sometimes reports just get buried by new ones (I tend to start at the bottom and work up till I've blocked 2-3 at most then stop). Complex reports will take longer. Badly formatted ones too (I don't think yours were). And I suspect that reports about less important pages get less attention.

The system isn't terribly efficient: its leads to duplication (for all you know, several admins checked out your reports but thought... "oh well, I'm not sure, I'll leave this to someone else"). One day it will get more formalised, probably. But not soon! William M. Connolley 17:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

Recent 3RR on Space Cadet

Hey, I usually tend to avoid taking a stance here, but (this time) I think SC is right: this was not a revert.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied on 3RR page. William M. Connolley 09:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

Am I wrong or did he edit articles [15] after being blocked [16]? He shouldn't be able to, but the log says so. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, while the log is in the block log [17], it is not on the List of currently blocked IP adrsses [18] for 23:36. Strange -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a bit weird. I don't care enough to re-block to make sure, though. I wonder if its the underscore? If I knew where to report this as a possible bug, I would... William M. Connolley 10:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

yes, strange. I noticed, because he continues to revert, 4 out of 6 article edits since then have been reverts. Thanks for the info. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN3 is a dangerous place

I suggest you start a Request for Comment to solve disputes. Sceptre ^(Talk) 11:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be primarily a waste-of-time matter; so I don't want to waste any more time on it. An RFC seems way over the top. William M. Connolley 11:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

Yeah. I'm getting flack for 3RR blocking as well. Sceptre ^(Talk) 11:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats all right, you're supposed to :-) William M. Connolley 11:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

Wasn't getting this much before.... Sceptre ^(Talk) 22:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been quite vigorous :-). You could always back off for a little while William M. Connolley 22:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

John Brignell

User engjs (Jim Smith) who you just reverted for inappropriate comments on Tim Lambert has engaged in a revert war at John Brignell. Isn't there some sort of limit on the number of times one user can do this? Anyway, if you want to take a look I'd be gratefulJQ 12:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

See WP:3RR for the rules and WP:AN3 for reports. I'll have a look. William M. Connolley 13:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

Just reverted a further violation of WP:3RR by engjs. He may be under the impression that large-scale manual reversions don't count.JQ 23:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

It has been some time since I posted this report on 3RR violation Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Zero0000. Will you take a look at it? Pecher ^Talk 22:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just answered; the answer is no. There is zero (ha ha) evidence that the IP is Zero. Also do please note that people should be warned when approaching 3RR. You are not trying to trap them into going over the line, you are trying to avoid the edit war! William M. Connolley 23:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

RC Question

William, someone recently asked me a question for which I didn't have a ready answer, and can't seem to find one by looking through your site. How is RealClimate financially supported? Dragons flight 01:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the answer is there somewhere, though not very obvious. The main answer is that none of us are paid; support is only for the web hosting (I think) which is provided by... not sure. I'll look it up. William M. Connolley 09:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

OK, here it is: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=120 William M. Connolley 19:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Somehow your "disclaimer" managed to avoid all of my search terms like "funding", "support", "financial", etc. I guess I should have simply searched on "money" . Dragons flight 19:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, follow the money... or in this case, lack thereof William M. Connolley 19:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Luminare

Please have Luminare stay off of my talk page, please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have left him a note. William M. Connolley 09:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

Hipocrite's talk page

Repeatedly reverting another users talk page is impolite. Don't do it; once is quite enough. William M. Connolley 09:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

Ok! I thought it was not acceptable to remove a personal attack warning without at the least leaving a sign of that warning, and I felt it was acceptable on my side to correct the situation. Anyway, I am ok with that now. I am also removing all sign of that in my talk page. We can all forget about it as long as Hipocrite stop saying in my back, to editors with who I interacted, that I am a troll, etc. He does it in their talk page and I don't even know how many editors received this kind of messages from him. -Lumière 12:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Effectively, you have control over your own talk page (if for no other reason than that admins will block people from 3rr'ing someone elses page, but not their own). If someone has removed your message, they have noticed it; there is no need to repeat. William M. Connolley 12:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

I love this rule, which gives us control over our talk page! However, I heard that a user talk page is public and used as a way for all editors to know what kind of warnings, etc. he received. I was told that a user was not allowed to remove such information from his talk page. I hope that it is not a situation where the critics of administrators, which are often nothing less than personal attacks (in some cases mixed with correct application of the rules, which makes them even worst), have a different status. -Lumière 14:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you are repeating this, as I've already told you above. I don't see what this has to do with admins. William M. Connolley 14:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

As I said, I was concerned that what you told me did not apply to the critics of administrators. I needed this to be clarified. Don't you think it is important to clarify this issue? -Lumière 15:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Admins have no special status as regards talk pages or any discussion. Of course. William M. Connolley 15:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A personal attack.

This edit is a very bad personal attack on a new editor that in my opinion did not deserve it at all. It is one month old, but it is not too late, I hope, to warn the editor. -Lumière 14:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is indeed too late, and as far as I can see nothing to do with me. William M. Connolley 14:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)