I'm fairly busy in the Real World at the moment. expect delays here...

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there.

If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here & I'll go take a look.

In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email. If I've blocked you for 3RR this applies particularly strongly: your arguments for unblock, unless for some odd reason particularly sensitive, should be made in public, on your talk page. See-also WMC:3RR.

In the dim and distant past were... /The archives. As of about 2006/06, I don't archive, just remove. Thats cos I realised I never looked in the archives.

Atmospheric circulation pic

Thanks for the pic you added to this article. It's very interesting, and I am intrigued by some of the anomalies it shows. Denni ☯ 01:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't; I'll ask around a bit William M. Connolley 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I added a link to autoregressive moving average models JQ 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will take a look William M. Connolley 11:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intertropical Convergence Zone

You've removed the information that tells why winds are irregular and light at the ITCZ. "Why" is an important consideration in an article. So my question is, why did you do it? D e nni ☯ 21:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on the talk there William M. Connolley 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

referencing

I know you have thoughts on this. What should an ideal referencing system look like in your opinion? Dragons flight 08:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the cite.php thingy could be upgraded into the ideal ref system. I've said this elsewhere, but: there are people who like footnotes, and many who don't; and those who do like them tend to do so cos it keeps the info together. Which is true. But cite.php also does this. All we need is for cite to be configurable to either output [1+link to footnote] or [Name+link to URL] and everyone can be happy (and ditto a slightly modified endlist too). Config would either be on a per-page basis or on a user-vireing basis (though the latter has cache issues?).

The other point is that the [url] system is quick and convenient and does 99% of what you want. I would hate it if people felt put off adding links because the new spiffy better system was too complex to bother with. So the ideal system has to easily upgrade from [url] to new; and to be mixable with it.

William M. Connolley 08:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression all of the meteorology-based articles were going to comply with the Wikipedia-preferred referencing system instead of direct links. This is slowly happenning on the tropical cyclone pages; what makes the climate change page special in this regard? Also, what does POV mean? I'm still relatively new to wikipedia. Thegreatdr 01:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CLIMAP

I just started CLIMAP. Any chance you can contribute something to it? Dragons flight 07:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite... William M. Connolley 07:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reddi and the Kansas City Library anon

I think the answer to your question is obvious from one of my experimental cruft-control pages, User:Hillman/Dig/Reddi. Sigh... Many of his edits seem legit, but many are certainly pushing an idiosyncractic POV. ---CH 04:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I do wish he could be more useful and less, as you say, idiosyncratic William M. Connolley 07:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change feedbacks and causes

There are several cooling mechanisms proposed: aerosols (non absorbing), orbitals changes, sun activity, increased cloud cover (reflection). All of them are feedbacks - one adds something (say reflecting aerosols) and Earth's surface is cooling. Some of these feedbacks are related to aerosols and clouds (so called Twomey effects) - i.e. aerosols influence cloud microphysics which causes more reflection. This is why I moved greenhouse effect, aerosol effect, cloud effect, orbital, sunspots to "climate change feedbacks and causes". Now, the main reason was that I wanted to separate climate change policy, assessment (mostly IPCC), from climate change feedbacks; i.e. to separate politics from science. Also, I wanted to intruduce classification in climate change categories, because there were too many articles in one category. More work is needed there and help will be appreciated. Pflatau 14:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. GC is primarily a thing, not a feedback or a cause. Within GC, there are the various mechanisms. These are not feedbacks either. Aerosols are not a feedback - they are a mechanism. Milank is not a feedback either, though it is a cause. But the pge is about GC - not about aerosols William M. Connolley 16:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, global warming can be considered as just that Earth and atmosphere is warming. However, the most important issue is what is causing it (reasons) and what/who is causing it (attribution). "Causing" part is mostly through feedbacks, not by direct forcing (say, influence of the CO2). Global climate models (IPCC) indicate that, say, 0.2K is due to direct CO2 forcing, and 1-3K to feedbacks with water vapor and cloud cover. So, do you consider global dimming as feedback or as "a thing"? I will think about this a bit more. If you feel GW, GC should not be in feedbacks - revert them. But, I think we have decent categories skeleton now for "climate change". What do you think? Pflatau 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the overall structure, I haven't looked. But I think that GW, GC belong in cl ch - not in causes. Maybe (once the FA edit wars are over) post a message on the GW talk page to garner opinion? William M. Connolley 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NAS/NRS report

Hi William. I agree (with both of you) that the report has to be mentioned. I don't have time to read and digest the full report at the moment, but I have read the summary and some selected parts. Based on that, I find Lumidek's interpretation very "creative", to say the last. As far as I can tell, nothing in the report contradicts Mann et al., except maybe on the confidence of some of the more specific claims. I'd be happy to have a synopsis by a competent researcher, e.g. on Real Climate. --Stephan Schulz 18:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gulf Stream not heating Europe?

Hi William, during writing a German version of the English Effects of global warming article I got notice about an article in American Scientist by Richard Seager, claiming to explain that the Gulf Stream, respectively the North Atlantic Current, would not be warming up Europe in winter times. You can find the article here, its title is The Source of Europe's Mild Climate - The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth, and I would be glad to hear a few words from you about that. Have I just not read enough from your colleague? all the best, Hardern 20:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, opinions on this somewhat differ. My basic take on this is that the warmth of europe, compared to western n america at the same latitude - is due to being downstream of an ocean instead of downstream of a continent. However, there is more to it than that (surprise). You should find http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/69298b2f044784ac/# of interest William M. Connolley 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Androcles" is back

Der alte Hexenmeister (talk • contribs) (who is known as Adrocles on USENET) is back and vandalizing the relativity pages again. So far (since he returned), there is only one incident in the article space and two talk space postings, but I'm sure that he is going to slowly step it up over time until and unless he is blocked again. --EMS | Talk 02:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recent blocking of Androcles/Hexenmeister. Hopefully this will keep him out of our hair for another week. --EMS | Talk 14:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reddi apparently back

... with another sockpuppet [2] KarlBunker 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Advice on Provocative Edit Summaries

Dear Mr. Connelly: Please take a look at this edit summary. Is this a breach of civility? It seems to me to be an attempt to start an argument. I've ceased responding to this editor to keep the arguments down. I suspect others will not be so kind. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For background concerning the above post and the one aimed earlier (without naming him) at User:Doright, see the endless discussion on Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies, Talk: Martin Luther and the Jews, Talk:Martin Luther and archived talk pages. I entered this thirty years editing war as a third set of eyes, created a compromise article [3], in the naive and foolish hope that I could be of some value in calming an intensely nasty battle. The condensed version was agreeable to both sides for approximately thirty hours, and now I am viewed as an adversary by this editor, editor Pmmcain and another who sent me an email making comments re "Jewish administrators," though the latter has apologized and I had hoped that we had turned over a new leaf. Apparently not. The battle has only intensified since PMmcain was banned for one week upon my complaint. I have asked this editor, and also appealed to all editors generally in previous comments during my "third set of eyes" role, to please stop personalizing content disputes. In response I was the subject of an edit summary by a self-described Lutheran pastor saying that I had "joined the cabal." --Mantanmoreland 14:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that in principle there is nothing at all wrong with Removing edit that skews POV of article and gives excess emphasis to minority POV, and which put minor journalist on a par with seminal cultural history of the Third Reich; stop the POV-pushing). I've used similar myself, on global warming articles. I think what you are objecting to is that the summary is *wrong* - which is essentially a content problem William M. Connolley 15:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opinion. My difficulty with it is it is a part of pattern of attacking the reputation of a scholar as a way of dismissing his opinion. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The view that the journalist in question is a "scholar" is not the consensus. See [4]. The purpose of the cited discussion is to improve the project. It is commonplace in such discussions for sources to be subjected to vigorous scrutiny and criticism. It is essential that these discussions be conducted in a free atmosphere, without constant complaints of this nature. Complaints that criticism of favored sources is a "personal attacks on scholars" are commonplace on the talk pages I cited.--Mantanmoreland 15:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dealing with partial reverts

Hopefully, when partial revert is present it is still identifiable. The policy is crystal clear (in whole ot in part) but it may take some effort to read through the evidence (which is also clear) Zeq 18:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If my counting is correct, this is the 3rd time I report a 3RR violation that you seem not to want to take an action although there is a clear violation. If there is a hidden message there please enlightme what it is cause I don't understand what you are doing and why . Zeq 03:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hexenmeister again

William - You need to look at this edit to my user page. Let's just say that Hexenmeister is asking for it again it seems. OTOH, you may want to look at all of his recent contributions since your last block, as the others are reasonably civil, and also at the history for Hexenmeister's talk page and User_talk:Der_alte_Hexenmeister itself to gain some context. Thanks, --EMS | Talk 19:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a warning for that. Let me know if it recurs William M. Connolley 19:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question re Lindzen

(also posed at Richard Lindzen article) Lindzen is best known to the public for his skepticism about anthropogenic global warming as reflected in Wall Street Journal Op-Eds, etc. Is this also reflected in his academic research at all? I.e. do any of his academic papers or preprints make a case in this direction (like say McKitrick)? Crust 19:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer there. But these things are tricky: you can't really get politics into journals. For example, since the HS doesnt underpin AGW, you could make a case for McI not having been skeptical in any journal... William M. Connolley 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re tricky: Good point. Still I guess McKitrick thinks (or at a minimum says he thinks) that his own research is undermining AGW. From your post at the Lindzen article, it sounds like Lindzen is a different case; his skeptic case is pretty much independent of his own research. Crust 20:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack

Actually, I did not remove anything. An example of what I'm referring to is: here, the second paragraph. He questions my personal ethics by calling my proposal a charade and then uses my employment in an effort to discredit me. Reading WP:NPA#Examples of personal attacks, the fourth bullet, I was under the impression this was a personal attack. This is now the third time he's done that. I can, if you'd like, give you diffs on it. What am I missing? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides are, it seems to me, being less polite than they could be, but also using NPA as a weapon to beat their foes with... [5] is also over-sensitive. Stop complaining; do your best to edit in harmony; ignore minor slights; they are beneath you William M. Connolley 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I won't bother you any longer. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 23:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR reporting

Thanks for your quick action on the 3RR problem on the FightDemBack entry.

Not being terribly familiar with the Wikipedia 3RR process nor the editing interface, I found creating the 3RR report to be cumbersome. The specifications for what information is required in the report are not clear. I didn't understand what was meant by 'previous version' and so left it out. I wasn't quite sure how to include the information requested. I don't expect to do such reports often, but I'll see to getting them right in future. Thanks for acting promptly on the matter regardless of my omission. Cheers, Schmoul Aschkenazi 00:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ptmccain

Because of your familiarity with this ongoing problem, I think it will be be helpful if you have a chance to get to this. Thanks for your steady hand. --Doright 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have not posted the "result" on the 3RR page, and this is my first 3RR report, I'm not sure if this case is closed. I certainly hope not. The last time you blocked him you said:

"In view of repeated 3RRs on this page, a longer block seems called for: 1 week William M. Connolley 19:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)."

I'm sure you don't need me to point out how how the same logic applies here.

William, I don't see how a decrease in block time helps. It was only minutes after his last 7-day block expired that he again continued his prior edit war (i.e., reversions 3 and 5) without missing a beat.

I think you will agree that common sense dictates an increasing term, not a decreasing term for repeat offences of identical policy. Please take a look at his block history, plus the history of admin warnings and his expression of disdain for those official warnings.

IMHO, 2 days is not in the interest of WP and this shorter term can only contribute to the burnout of contributing editors. I have to tell you, if I thought the result was going to be 2 days, I would not have bothered with this.

The point is prevention and not punishment. The editor has repeatedly made it clear that the only way to prevent him is to block him. If this is not already obvious, further evidence can be provided.

Please consider the effect on WP when making your final judgment: The burnout of editors, time wasted, disruption to the community and the message it sends both to violators and victims. Thank you for your consideration and formidable contributions to the community. --Doright 00:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should be going through WP:DR in that case, starting with an RFC. You can't rely on 3RR to keep him banned William M. Connolley 07:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers. However, I don't see the issue as a dispute. The issue is a continuing pattern of policy violation. Where are those matters handled? Also, I'm wondering why you do not find your own logic that I cited above persuasive. --Doright 08:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Re: 3RR Bhouston

I read your comment about the consecutive edits counting as one. Thanks for informing me about that. Since the time I made that report there has been further action by the editor. My question is if I should use "strike-outs" to modify the report and append it, just edit it outright, create a new report, or is there a preferred method? I'd appreciate your advice on protocol and decorum. I'm adding this section of your dissussion page to my watch list. Thanks. Ste4k 17:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to remove the old one, as its invalid, and add a new one as appropriate. William M. Connolley 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ste4k 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming : Alternative Theories

I'm not trying to create problems, in case anyone was wondering. If this is too long here, I can put it on my talk page.

I had made the following corrections to the Okeskes paragraph. Her name is Naomi not Nancy, and she's not a social scientist she's a history professor (UC San Diego). I added her data source (ISI 1993-2003) in addition to the search term. I put in the link to the actual essay [6] rather than to a blog about the essay for her external link. The information on there right now is incorrect.

This doesn't matter, really, but as far as in the original essay by her that's linked to in what I put (the actual Science story), the keywords were listed as "global climate" which Peiser used --at first-- and found 12,000 hits. His searching for the wrong thing was due to what she wrote, not due to an error on his part. He then went back once he found she had the wrong search term in the originally published material and he redid it with "Global Climate Change" where he gets the 1200ish references. Seems though his search was bigger than hers, though, and so on and so forth. That might be an error on his part, although some claim is 100% is an error on his part.

If you know of someplace else the information that the study results is maybe possibly probably incorrect, in the interest of Neutrality, that should be mentioned, especially in an Alternative theories section, of all things. Her study is contested, as is the conclusion. I see though now that Peiser's work is weak at best, and that the self-publishing isn't Verifiable, so I guess it mostly doesn't matter.

On that note, "At present, these have little support within the climate science community as primary explanations for the recent warming." What exactly constitutes the Climate Science Community? That seems like a claim that is crying out for a citation, it's very vague.

The Oreskes article is a citation.

Hmmmm.... Can't really argue with that. Okay. I don't think it's a very good one for proving anything, but you're right.

Finally, I notice there is no link for the The National Academies National Research Council "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years" paper, I would think that is an important scientific link [7] since it is the source material for a lot of the global warming data. I'd think it's about as important as the IPCC TAR is.

If you think its as important as the TAR, you're not very familiar with the subject. T recons is only one minor component of what the TAR considered.

No, just almost. But okay, maybe not even that. Still might be nice to link it, although I suppose one could just go read the An_Inconvenient_Truth page. But that's why I asked rather than put it in and have it deleted.

I know you and others are very busy trying to keep up with this page, not trying to overwhelm you, but maybe it should be locked so there's more time to actually correct some of the mistakes on the page rather than having not enough time to edit, and therefore constantly having to revert everything.

Thanks for your time. Sln3412 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Correcting Oreskes name is fine - though using her first name is probably pointless anyway. However, Peiser got the wrong answer, because he used the wrong data bases, so In a letter to Science, social antropologist and editor of CCNet, Dr. Benny Peiser, detailed his recreation of that study using the same keywords and the same data, and found different results is deeply deceptive. I presume you know he used the wrong keywords and database when you wrote that para. Also, writing in a letter is also deeply deceptive, because that implies publication, which you know didn't occur. Quite *why* they didn't like it we'll never know. Peiser is discussed at Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change (sadly the deltoid link is broken at the moment for me).

What is the evidence that he used the wrong database and keywords? Dragons flight 20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its on Deltoid (which is broken for me right now). OK, here is googles cache of the list of 34 consensus-busting abstracts - read them yourself and see if you agree (I didn't). And Norvig mentions the wrong database bit too. I've mailed TL to try to get him to fix deltoid. William M. Connolley 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that his classifications can be questionable, but my understanding is that they both used the ISI and they both used "global climate change" for the search. Peiser got a 20% larger sample by including editorials and other not really scientific content, but that's not really what I would think of if someone says he used the wrong database. Is there something else I'm missing? Dragons flight 20:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peiser included "all documents" in the database rather than just scientific articles, and he included Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities as well as Sciences.? From Norvig. Its gone into on more detail in Deltoid. Basically, if you do what Peiser did, you get the wrong number. Peiser, it seems, just assumed Oreskes was wrong. One of Deltoids readers just played with keywords and databases a bit till he got the right number William M. Connolley 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the same thing I think, a chronology of the Lambert blog at backseatdriving.blogspot says somebody named Meyrick says he back-worked the search, and that Oreskes excluded the "Social Sciences Citation Index" and the "Arts & Humanities Citation Index" and she also only searched articles.

I have since read the blogs and related info on him using two datasets rather than just one, thank you. I don't know if that invalidates everything, but certainly it changes the claim he used the same data. (The 2000 figure uses the correct keywords, which didn't change the claim; just an extra dataset, which does change it.) I appologize for bothering you. Sln3412 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologise; its good to talk; better than edit warring :-) William M. Connolley 20:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! One last question; is something like this acceptable, some of it might clear up some of the debate, as well as being more accurate. I'm still unsure why the link points to a blog and not the essay itself, however. ----- "In an essay in the journal Science, Naomi Oreskes, associate professor of history and director of the Program in Science Studies at UC San Diego, reported a sampling of the abstracts of 928 articles on climate change, selected using the key phrase "global climate change" from the published peer-reviewed scientific literature in the ISI database from 1993-2003, searching only articles and excluding the "Social Sciences Citation Index" and the "Arts & Humanities Citation Index"." ----- Something like that. Sln3412 21:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting into too much detail. The GW article is too long already. Why do we need all this extra detail? Its interesting, it should be somewhere, but not on the GW page. How about on Oreskes page? William M. Connolley 21:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that is very long already, and not needed. Ok... I guess I have to write an Oreskes article. Hmmmm... Thanks. Sln3412 21:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Block

Please kindly provide the diff links to show that I have made more than three reverts for the same thing to that article within a 24-hour period. Please also explain in what way was the page ban related. Thank you. — Instantnood 19:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the diff links submitted by user:Vsion, it's pretty apparent there aren't more than three reverts for the same thing. The page ban was related to the criteria to the field "largest city" in the country infobox. — Instantnood 20:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re [8] - Please be reminded you have to obligation to unblock once the original 48-hour block has expires. (This message should not be seen as an endorsement or an approval towards appropriateness, properness and validity of the block.) — Insta ntnood 19:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

Hi, you blocked me for 3RR, however I was reverting vandalism and a 3RR violator. Can you review?Yukirat 05:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its what they all say guv. But only blatant vandalism counts, which this wasn't William M. Connolley 20:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Hi, User:CaptainSurrey committed an extremely uncalled for personal attack on the talk page of Jafaican ([9]), "Well, aren't you a socialist, namby pamby little scumbag! Go eat some sulpheric acid, for god's sake.", not against me but against a fellow user. I would like to warn him but since I'm more or less involved in the discussion and not an admin, I fear my warning would carry little significance. Mackan 14:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dscn1914-pufferfish.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Dscn1914-pufferfish.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you block me?

I need to ask you why did you block me for 3 hours? Please answer as soon as possible...

Thanks, --Wladimir 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was there about (3rr on Knin) [10] that you found unclear? William M. Connolley 16:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was about Knin... --Wladimir 16:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to know the whole story

Hello, you blocked me for three hours yesterday on the request of Grandmaster and Tajik. Well, let me tell you the whole story. The article contains facts that are not fully explained, nor are they fully neutral. Before I start, I would just like to inform you that I am the only one ever using hte talk page, as Grandmaster and Tajik ignore the discussions, yet refuse to allow any changes.

Let me begin...

I've trimmed your message, because you've missed the point. I'm only judging you on 3RR. Content is another matter - appropriate to the article talk page. If talk there fails, try WP:DR but going over 3R is a mistake William M. Connolley 16:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but you need to realise why i did that. so what should i do in a situation were two people are taking complete control over an article? did you read my message? is it not reasonable? talk to GM and Tajik. please, tell me what to do, what are my options? is this what wikipedia has come to?Khosrow II 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I provided you with the WP:DR link and look! I've done so again. Now follow it William M. Connolley 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kindness - reply to your message

Thank you very much. Nothing was very obvious in today's move/move reverts - one of the reasons I lost count.

If clarification you would like, this was the version reverted to, but this became this with User:Metropolitan's edits, and this after many corrections/edits by yours truely. I don't know how it was done, perhaps by cut and paste or moving a precedent version, but in moving the page, User:Hardouin somehow reverted it to its former state.

Although it is quite clear that he broke the WP:3RR rule too, I think I'll drop it - although I don't agree with his pushy reverting and his pushing opinon as fact, I don't have a vendetta out for the guy. You gave me a break, so I'll give him one too. Thanks for your being quite kind through all this. THEPROMENADER 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I just caught your "I'll reply on your talkpage" notice above - feel free to remove this message as it's now on my page too. Take care : ) THEPROMENADER 20:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can stay here. Thanks for You gave me a break, so I'll give him one too - good spirit William M. Connolley 20:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't administrators supposed to be impartial?

William, I must admit I'm quite puzzled and discouraged by your recent intervertions in the controversy with User:ThePromenader. First, the other day you blocked my account along with ThePromenader's, because supposedly the revert done at Paris by the anonymous user with IP address 66.159.221.97 was by me. I absolutely deny being this anonymous user. Not only was the revert done at 4:54 UTC ([11]), which is 5:54am my time, at which time as you can very well imagine I am in bed and not in front of Wikipedia, but it would also have been extremely easy to check this IP address and compare it with my IP address. Yet you blocked me based only ThePromenader's assertation that it was me, without checking the IP address or leting me answer Promenader's accusation. Then today you have unblocked ThePromenader despite the fact that he had clearly infringed the 3RR, and why that? because he offered the lame excuse that he lost count (how convenient) and he made a vague promise that he wouldn't do it again. I can only notice that you don't show the same kind of leniency when you block me...

I would very much like an explanation about that block the other day, and Promenader's unblock today. To be honest, I am sick and tired of Promenader accusing me and administrators listening to his accusations blindingdly. Why didn't you double check the IP address? I can only assume that you didn't check it, because if you had you would have found out it wasn't mine. I am also tired of seeing Promenader always getting away with 3RRs and hot-blooded, uncomprimising attitude. Never punishing him only makes him more bold in his reverting other people and imposing his own slant in the Paris related articles. Promenader's peculiar ideas about Paris have already been opposed by several users, so I recommend reading Talk:Paris/archive_10#.22metropolitan_area.22_template, Talk:Île-de-France, and Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris where you'll have fine examples of his trying to impose his ideas against other users. The guy always hides behind supposed references, and always accuses other people disagreeing with him not to have references, so maybe that would explain why an admin throwing only a cursory glance at this would think that somehow Promenader must be the good guy in this. User:Metropolitan, who from what I understand is a native Frenchman, begs to differ. And so do I. ThePromenader, who admitted being Canadian and having lived in Paris for only about 10 years, often makes misguided edits due to his not so good knowledge of French things. In particular, his insistance that Paris is only the tiny administrative City of Paris within the Périphérique beltway would be found ridiculous by most Frenchmen, not to mention economists, geographers, and demographers, who know full well that administrative limits are irrelevant to analyse the economic, demographic, or social structures of a metropolis like Paris. Hardouin 21:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions of partiality are not the way to get me to help you. I think you and TP should try to stick to WP:1RR. I have no ability to check your IP, nor do other admins - it requires special powers. TP has promised to be good, so gets unblocked. You could have been, too William M. Connolley 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then if you don't have powers to check IPs, how could you block someone based on no evidence? This is arbitrariness in full. As for this idea that if I had asked, you would have unblocked me, it is proven wrong by facts. This is what you wrote to me when I sent you a message about my block last May (after Promenader, yet again him, accused me of breaking 3RR): "I blocked you cos you broke 3RR. Now, you have a dispute situation, and the solution is to talk and reach a solution, and/or use WP:DR. But simply reverting each other is sterile."([12]) You clearly didn't offer to unblock me. Hardouin 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hardouin. I left a message on your talk page about the IP question. You have instigated revert wars and broken the WP:3RR countless times, but I only began to report you in May, and I don't make false accusations as you would insinuate, thank you. I answer first to fact and reference, and these don't seem to echo your "Paris is bigger than Paris" theory. Virtually every reference in existence reflects the fact that nothing outside Paris' administrative limits is called only "Paris" - Paris area: yes; Paris agglomeration: yes; Paris region: yes; but simply Paris: no. How is it possible to argue against overwhelming fact? Nationality and experience mean nothing if what one publishes is not fact - no matter where you're from, if what you write is not findable in any reference, you can't expect others to just take your word for it ! Now, if you don't mind, I think we've filled this gentleman's talk page enough for one night. THEPROMENADER 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you come and pollute this talk page after my last message? This is typical Promenader, intervening in other people talk pages even when uncalled for, making base accusations (such as "you've broken the 3RR countless times, but I only began to report you in May"), and then candidly saying that we should stop filling the "gentleman"'s talk page. William, this has happened many times before. Please by all means check User talk:El_C#Problem - Advice? where Promenader libelled me and I felt compelled to reveal Promenader's stalking of User:Metropolitan. If you think the word stalking is extravagant, read carefully what I wrote on E1_C talk page about Promenader uncovering Metropolitan's home address and girlfriend's existence. I posted all the links. Promenader's shameful stalking in itself should have deserved a permanent block. So please Promenader, don't lecture me on someone else's talk page. Hardouin 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When one attempts to mislead others in making untrue and baseless accusations upon myself, it is only normal that I intervene. Again, the above amounts to baseless and highly aggressive slander. All the same, I have - civilly - answered the above on your talk page. Goodnight. THEPROMENADER 22:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help please?

Hi--maybe you can help?

I'm not too sure how to use the finer points of Wikipedia yet, and am afraid maybe an article is totally screwed up as a result somehow...

I'm not sure what is going on with the Seven-Year War page. Someone is playing games and preventing moves from happening to the correct name, and now it's all murkied and is at a weird state. I guess they wanted it under Imjin War since it's known in Korea that way, though not in the US or UK...

Today I moved it back to the original name for the article (Seven-Year War) since:

It is known by that in the English speaking world in most history books
There was a discussion that didn't lead to a conclusion, but more or less was shaping up to agree with that fact on the talk page

Someone moved it awhile back without further discussion. Today I reverted it, and it was moved back and forth for awhile. Then, they setup some kind of page block to prevent it from going back to the Seven Year War, and moved it. I couldn't figure out what was going on, and wound up moving it to Seven--Year War to see if it would work, and then they moved it to a totally different name completely (Imjin Wars)...

Is there any way to fix this without bugging an admin? [[User:Appleby] seems to like revert warring, and I guess he's got too much practice at getting it right. If most people somehow feel that it should be under a different name, that's fine, but it's irritating that he seems to just fiddle around the system to get his own way.

I'm not sure the proper way to ask for help; I asked another person as well. I am asking you since you seem to be both helpful--both in the amount of edits you do and the consistency you seem to do them (so I figured there was a good chance you might spot this help request).

Just to be clear, I'm not asking you to move it to the name I want, I'm just asking if you can help fix up the mucked titles that prevent it from going (at this point) to Seven-Year War so that it can at least be done. Komdori 01:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the reverting, not the page move. You need to sort the desired name out on talk; then look at Wikipedia:Requested moves William M. Connolley 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on 3RR requested

Dear Mr. Connolley:

Has Mantanmoreland violated the 3RR rule at Martin Luther? I'm trying to understand how this works. Thanks for looking. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Read the rules, trawl the edits, if you can be bothered - and if you can't, I certainly can't William M. Connolley 15:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've read the rules, but had my interpretations questioned before. I don't intend to press the issue, since I do not think the last edit was intended as part of an edit war. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Hello sir,

Given the... extremely contententious and vitriolic back and forth on every tiny word by word aspect of this article and it's subject matter, would it be possible to request that the current form of the page--as it is at the moment of your locking--stay locked by you thus until the AfD is completed? This seems to be the most reasonable and balanced form of the article until or unless more news sources can be found and cited.

Thanks for your time, rootology 15:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the article. Given this request, I'd ask that WMC roll the dice and roll back the article randomly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never called nor implied endorsement. Per the current concensus at the talk page the article at the moment of locking was relatively stable. You have vowed in the talk pages to undo edits of mine as (paraphrase) "you're blocked for 3rr". Locking the article is to stop this pointless temporary war that yourself and MONGO apparently have to dismantle the article, and allow AfD to run it's natural course. All the edits and revisions on both sides since unblocked with reeking of POV bias. What is curious is that before MONGO was attacked randomly by ED on their website, this article was relatively stable for ages. This has become a vendetta from certain admins to "get even" with the outside ED people by taking apart the article that talks about them. rootology 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as mentioned in the complaint it is biased and improper for MONGO to have had anything else do with this article, and he still has not been addressed for having violated policy by editing this article AFTER it was locked (documented repeatedly), and the fact that as soon as concensus the other day in the talk pages swung against his opinion he wiped and archived the whole talk pag, AND he even said in Tony Sideaway's talk page that he would effectively "break" this article. rootology 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, William protected the page quite a while ago. Stop arguing on his talk page. Guettarda 16:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on the talk page William M. Connolley 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJCurrie breaks the 3RR

You just banned me because I broke the Three Revert Rule (even though I will be proven right on this issue, if you keep abreast of it). Anyway, user:CJCurrie has actually reverted the same information SIX times over the last two days. Please check this out. ED209 17:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- user:pm_shef reverted the same information FOUR times over the last few days as well. Please just check the history of this and you will see these users should have been banned, as you did with me. ED209 17:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its 4R in 24h for a block. Do please read the rules William M. Connolley 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On July 17th, user:CJCurrie reverted THREE times (and four in a 24-hr period going back to the evening before. Do something about this. ED209 18:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I'm sure people complain or ask you to unblock them every time you block them. It must be annoying. Thanks for considering my words and unblocking me. You were right to block me, as I did violate WP:3RR, even if I didn't realize it or was acting in good faith. Take it easy, and happy editing. :) --AaronS 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask for your input?

Sorry to bother you, but if you're willing, could you review the latest additions on the talk page of the Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD talk page? You were *incredibly* fair and level headed to both sides of the fight earlier, and if you're willing--totally fine if you don't want to get involved of course--would you mind weighing in on the option of just moving the article to Parody and being done with it? I'm worried if it's a no concensus (looking more likely each hour) any admin action will be leapt upon with RfCs and ArbCom and who knows what by the losing side, if it's a clean keep Keep (not likely) it'll be the new GNAA with 18+ AfDs in a year, and if it's a delete vote (not likely) deletion review hell will be endless and just as bad as this AfD. Thanks for your time, patience and good humor earlier. rootology 15:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a proposal to move it to Parody? And how could it be moved there. I'm confused William M. Connolley 15:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that was confusing (the thing is such a mess even I'm starting to get lost in the morass). It's here. rootology 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I think the answer is, I don't know enough about this to weigh in. Sorry William M. Connolley 15:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just wanted to run it by you. Have a nice weekend! rootology 15:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

admin Zanimum violated your article protection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zanimum

Please see the Encyclopedia Dramatica and please revert back to the version in place prior to his inappropriate edits. Thanks... rootology 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on ED=

I felt ok about restoring the blanked content not being 3RR (blanking = vandalism to me, and even then I didn't see three repeats). You felt different and blocked. That's fine, I's takes me lumps. It does smart a little bit that out of that entire mess I was the only one blocked. It's water under the bridge now, but for some future sucker in any sense of fairness - there were probably more lumps to deliver. SchmuckyTheCat 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]