User talk:William M. Connolley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Atmospheric circulation pic 2 RRS John Biscoe 3 Trend Estimation with Auto-Correlated Data 4 Linda Hall editor 5 User:Reddi apparently back 6 And to think 7 WP:AN3 8 Thermohaline article 9 The Templeton Foundation 10 Abusive edit summaries 11 AN/3RR standard template 12 Love this! 13 Can you run a Checkuser on an IP for me 14 User:Great Scrivener unblocked 15 Bias? 16 Fluid Dynamics Project 17 Opus Dei 18 Paradoxtom 19 Apologies 20 User Hobgoblin 21 User:User:Jghfutikdpe3 22 Thanks 23 3rr 24 Operation Gladio 3rr 25 Talk page block deleted 26 Improving the models 27 Would you consider the edit below to be vandalism, exempt from 3RR? 28 Sockpuppet Beaumontproject 29 Block of BhaiSaab 30 I never violated the 3RR 31 Just a question 32 Ayyavazhi 33 User:208.250.137.2 and User:BryanFromPalatine the same? 34 The Australian 35 Hold-On tag broken? 36 Gone fishin' 37 EPICA and vostok picture

[edit] Atmospheric circulation pic

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

Hi Denni. Thanks! All part of my very very slow atmospheric dynamics project... more to come... slowly... William M. Connolley 22:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC).

[edit] RRS John Biscoe

I've justed created a stub for this article and found you'd already done the same for her successor, the James Clark Ross. Great!  Do you have (access to) a Commons/Wikipedia-compliant photo of the Biscoe that could be used? Apologies in advance if my search failed to turn one up.
Best wishes, David Kernow 15:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Thanks. If no joy, or too much hassle, I'm hopeful one or other of the Antarctica websites with photos might give permission or adopt a Commons/Wikipedia-friendly licence. David Kernow 22:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trend Estimation with Auto-Correlated Data

William: This article you started is a great topic! I am just wondering if you have detailed information to add to the section about auto-correlated data. I am facing this problem now, and am trying to get information from papers and textbooks. --Roland 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, IMHO what to do with auto-correlated data is an ongoing research topic. Top tip: divide the ndof by something like (1+ac1) (or is it ac1^2...) if the autocorr isn't too extreme. There is some formula like (1+ac1^2+ac2^2+...) if its strongly auto-correlated... but... its a bit of a mess, I think. Err, thats why I never expanded that bit. The von Zstorch and Zwiers book covers it, somewhat. William M. Connolley 22:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

My feeling is that 204. is Reddi. Reddi is limited to 1R per week. Establishing the connection past doubt is difficult; but the edit patterns are very similar. You could post a WP:RFCU. Or you could just list 204. on the 3RR page together with the note of Reddis arbcomm parole and see if that does any good. Or maybe I'll just block it... shall I? Oh go on, yes I will... William M. Connolley 21:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My Reddimeter displays 8.5 on a scale from 0 to 10: Selection of topics. likes patents, likes templates. Only the tireless lamenting on article talk pages is missing. --Pjacobi 21:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Reddi apparently back

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

Is there no stopping him? I've blocked that one; if he persists, will semi it William M. Connolley 19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And to think

..I knew you when. Why didn't you mention this?

• KNOW IT ALL - Can Wikipedia conquer expertise? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. I did my best with them :-( William M. Connolley 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN3

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

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

[edit] Thermohaline article

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

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

[edit] The Templeton Foundation

The Templeton Foundation used to provide grants for ID conferences and courses. According to The New York Times, Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, later asked ID proponents to submit proposals for actual research. "They never came in," said Harper, and that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said. [3] The Templeton Foundation has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding, Harper states. "They're political - that for us is problematic," and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth." [4]

I'd think that while individual members/beneficiaries of the Foundation's largess may embrace ID, the the Foundation itself is trying to distance itself from the ID movement, but keeping in mind that the Discovery Institute, the hub of the ID movement, actively tries to cultivate ambiguity around its own motives, actions and members with the aim of portraying ID as more substantial and more widely accepted than it actually is, as the Dover Trial ruling shows (it's worth reading). [5] FeloniousMonk 21:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Abusive edit summaries

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your stupid 1-man anti-3RR crusade. Take it to the talk pages if you really must continue, but it would be better to recognise that the community is against you William M. Connolley 08:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse a few people giving general comments with 'the community'. There is absolutely no indication that 'the community' has expressed any particular view, and even if it had, I am actually allowed to disagree with your interpretation of what it is saying. I am also allowed to make a case which you happen to disagree with. Stop the personal attacks, and never, ever again block someone because they have written something that you don't like. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh good grief. There was a massive community vote in favour of 3RR. By all means argue against it on talk pages, although as you've discovered thats pointless. Or start up a new poll on it. But give up this "duty solicitor" self-aggrandisment William M. Connolley 09:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That vote was years ago, and without the experience of what happened in action. Consensus can change and voting is evil. To your shame you've yet to give up the personal attacks. PS is there a full stop shortage in Cambridge these days? You never seem to end sentences with them. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Descending to complaining about full stops is a bit desperate, and this is becoming all too personal. If you want to change the 3RR, and you think the consensus has changed, then sponsor another vote/poll/whatever. But the way you are going about things is simply not working William M. Connolley 10:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not complaining about full stops, merely inquiring why you seem to lack them. If this is becoming personal, then it is not on my side, because I was not the one who broke blocking policy because you wrote something I disagreed with. Whether I shall see success in getting rid of the damaging 3RR policy and worse implementation of it has yet to be seen. I take particular encouragement from the fact that you haven't actually been willing or able to defend it so far. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fys, you seem to be allowing your frustration to cloud your otherwise better judgement. Consider taking a break from Wikipedia for a while and regroup. If you are having 3RR issues, that often means that an obsession is spawned from POV frustration (your's, other's, or both). I speak from experience. Don't attack administrators who are only trying to help the overall objective of spreading knowledge to all. Having different POVs are simply part of the human experience, though like other aspects of human nature must be recognized and channeled judiciously. If you still have an issue with 3RR, then develop your case and present it at the 3RR Talk Page. Life is short; beware of being caught up in petty squabbles that degrade your quality of life. And have a Happy Thanksgiving if your are in the US). Skyemoor 12:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I presume you meant to address most of that to William M. Connolley, who has blocked me for only expressing an opinion he disagreed with, and has engaged in personal attacks on me. William M. Connolley may think that blocking for 3RR is "helping the overall objective of spreading knowledge to all" but others know better. Getting rid of 3RR and putting something more effective in its place will benefit Wikipedia and all its users. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I was speaking to you. Don't shoot the messenger, apply your talents to change the message (3RR). You have the choice to be a contributor to (WP) society, or a thorn. You seem to have a solid understanding of many of the principles of law, so I am convinced you could present (and rationally support) an eloquent case. In the meantime, you are only, as Paul put it, "kicking the prods", because William Connelly is not responsible for 3RR policy, only its execution. I'm interested in seeing your abilities as a barrister (and you can ignore the comment about Thanksgiving, I realize you are a UK citizen). Skyemoor 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AN/3RR standard template

Thanks for dealing with my recent posting. I appreciate that. My reason for not realizing I had to include the 'earlier version' link was the template wording, which reads (emphasis added):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

-- For simple reverts. For more complex reverts, please include information about which previous versions are being reverted to.

• 1st revert: DIFFTIME
• 2nd revert: DIFFTIME
• 3rd revert: DIFFTIME
• 4th revert: DIFFTIME

It seemed the earlier version was needed for simple cases only. An obvious misreading, I know, but since many people omit the previous version perhaps others are making the same error.

Could I suggest the wording be changed to:

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

For simple reverts, listing one previous version should be enough. For more complex reverts, please include information about all previous versions that are being reverted to. Provide at least four diffs below in any event.

• 1st revert: DIFFTIME
• 2nd revert: DIFFTIME
• 3rd revert: DIFFTIME
• 4th revert: DIFFTIME

What do you think? I won't make any changes unless you think it would help. Regards. --MichaelMaggs 13:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably a fair point. I've now "improved" the wording... William M. Connolley 14:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Love this!

I love how you describe yourself as a non-conformist. Of course, as anyone who has any brains would realize, you are certainly conforming in every aspect of your life. Say for instance your clothes. Isn't that an instance of conforming (I don't see you going "against the mold" in that respect? Isn't the internet a way you conform (you are submitting part of your individuality i.e. entering into a system for its benefits)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Great Scrivener (talk • contribs).

"You non-conformists are all alike." :D AmiDaniel (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Technically for non-conformists to be alike they would have to conform, making that statement an oxymoron.

 :-). But "against the mold" is good William M. Connolley 21:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC). Yes, but if you actually read my comment, you don't exactly go against the mold in most aspects of your life (by conforming)!

Although his English might go againt the mold, at least when he blanked your user page, he left a useful edit summary. :-) BostonMA ^talk 21:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you run a Checkuser on an IP for me

I believe User:Smeelgova may be using an IP sock to avoid 3RR on a recent revert. Can you check whether 68.36.159.77 is the same as User:Smeelgova . If so, I will file a 3RR. Sm1969 04:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No I can't: I don't have CU William M. Connolley 08:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice try dude, I ran my own location check on that IP and I wasn't anywhere near that location. But thanks for the concern. Smeelgova 00:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Yes, I see the IP from East Brunswick, New Jersey, which is not too far from Jersey City. :) Sm1969 00:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I found as well. Happy Thanksgiving. Smeelgova 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Happy Thanksgiving! I assume that means you are in the US, too. Sm1969 02:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Great Scrivener unblocked

If you look at more closely at the context of this edit, you can clearly tell that Great Scrivener (talk • contribs) was replying to your comments but didn't know to start a new paragraph or sign his own comments just like he did previously at [6]. Please be more careful about WP:BITE. --  Netsnipe  ►  01:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I fear you have erred - the fakery is here [7] and quite undeniable William M. Connolley 19:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh my! That was a cock-up on my behalf. My apologies. Somehow that edit passed me by. Hmmm...I wonder if reblocking will only exacerbate the situation. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, its too late now, and I should have been more specific for the benefit of others William M. Connolley 19:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias?

It is quite possible that William M. Connolley has exhibited bias towards those in favor of his global warming hypothesis. He has continually destroyed any bias (and some facts) against the idea, and has given supporters more than enough leniency for such supporters on the pages. He does not even supply the fact that many climate scientists have discovered a release in the usual "hockey stick" pattern for years behind the so-called "mini Ice Age". He gives a small list detailing how few scientists oppose the idea that global warming is mainly human-induced (a list I find to be most inaccurate), but hardly gives such an organized list for those supporting (except the IPCC, which, while comprised of many scientists, is by no means the only scientific study group). I personally know a man who has a P.h.D. in Physics and says that it is near impossible to tell the effects of human activies on the observed climate change. In addition, he does not address the political criticisms against the infamos Kyoto treaty, which gives poorer countries all the right in the world to frivolously release carbons. He does not even develop the absolute scientific idea of the mini Ice Age. Good Night, and Good Luck. (Great Scrivener 03:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

What a laundry list. William does seem to have a bias towards a factually correct presentation of the current state of knowledge in the field of climate science. I find that highly commendable. William also is not alone in editing the global warming related articles. You are free to try to improve them, as is the rest of Wikipedia. In the meantime:

• What is a release in the usual "hockey stick" pattern?
• There is no list of climate scientists supporting the IPCC position because it would be far to large to be useful. Also, support is so widespread that it does not make you notable, while opposition among qualified scientists is so rare that it confers notability in itself.
• No, the IPCC is not the only "scientific study group". In fact, it is not doing original research at all, but rather summarizes the existing state of knowledge. The National Academy of Sciences has one or two "study groups", and many other nations fund climate research through similar projects. However, the Heartland Institute or the Cooler Heads Coalition do not qualify...
• All hail to your friend the physicist. If he does not have a publication report in climate science, his opinion is irrelevant. If he has (and is marginally notable), by all means add him to the article.
• Most of the GW articles are dealing with the science of climate change. If you want to discuss the politics, feel free to go to Global warming controversy or Kyoto Protocol. Of course, be prepared to abide by WP:OR and WP:V.
• Mini-ice age? That seems like a more-or-less content free term of questionable grammar and little use. Or are you talking about the Little Ice Age, which has a reasonable article? Anyways, it is not the responsibility of each Wikipedia author to develop each and any possible article.--Stephan Schulz 10:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

But how does all this connect to William's work as an administrator? If you claim he misuses his position as an admin, give specific examples. Also, the correct place to take this would be WP:ANI, not his user page.--Stephan Schulz 10:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, to claim a physicist's opinion "irrelevant" is simply ignorant. Second of all, it was pretty obvious that I mistook the mini-ice age for the little ice age. Thirdly, there indeed are many more scientists who oppose the idea, and I will work towards getting all of those names in Wikipedia. Finally, I will be looking for the release in the hockey stick pattern to bring to wikipedia. Thank you. --Great Scrivener 15:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the opinion of one un-named person with a PhD is physics irrelevant? Any idiot can get a PhD (I have one, it doesn't take brilliance, just stubbornness). Guettarda 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I didn't say his opinion is irrelevant. I said it is irrelevant if he does not have a relevant publication record. In that case, we have no way of judging his qualification. Being a physicist is not enough - you can have a Ph.D. in particle physics without any knowledge about the climate system. As for all those scientists, be welcome to add them, but keep in mind that we need a public statement or scientific publication conflicting with the IPCC position, and of course basic notability. And I still don't get what you mean by a "release of the hockey stick"... Anyways, this page does not seem the right place to discuss general issues.--Stephan Schulz 16:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for defending me. Its perfectly clear [8] that TGS can't tell the difference between C and C14, so his claims to understanding of GW are valueless William M. Connolley 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to state that Mr. Connolley has proved me wrong through and through, and I now admit I have erred, both factually and morally (in regards to my unexcusable vandalism). Please accept my humble apology. (Great Scrivener 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

This retraction represents the highest sense of the pursuit of truth, where a person recognizes an err in their ways and corrects that err. I am sometimes slow to do the same; congratulations is in order. Skyemoor 12:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good. Clearly TGS is an idiot. (Greatest Hobgoblin 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Fluid Dynamics Project

I have created {{Fluid}} and the relevant categories. Can you come up with an image to use and can we start tagging articles. I think this will (hopefully) mean that if people move into this section (or away from it) it will be easier to keep track of what has been done and what needs to be done. Is this a good idea, have you any feedback? Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 23:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei

William, thanks for your help with User:Pradeshkava with regard to his editing Opus Dei. I note, however, there seem to be quite a number of accounts that are dedicted exclusively to promoting Opus Dei on Wikipedia. I and the other editors-- ones who have extensive editing histories on articles unrelated to the organization, have been having a lot of trouble improving the article. Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with the situation? I'm hesistant to treat it like "just any other content dispute", because it's pretty clear from the editing histories that the users in question are only interested in making Opus Dei look good.

Um, not sure. Get used to checking for socks, I suppose - though they may be different folk. Alert people on ANI - but you've done that William M. Connolley 10:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

While I'm asking--- do you have any opinion on the recent rewrite we did of the article? That was what Prad kept trying to delete. There's an RFC up on whether it's an improvement (and how it can be improved more) and I would welcome your comments. Usually I find RFCs only get 1 or 2 comments, and given that we have 5-6 single purpose accounts involved, we need all the outside opinions we can get. --Alecmconroy 10:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, OK, will have a brief look but its not one of my interests William M. Connolley 10:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. Yeah, it wasn't really one of my areas of interest either. I just saw a history channel special one day, saw the Wikipedia article on the subject was atrocious, and so now I'm in the middle of a big mess. lol.

To answer your question on Talk:Opus Dei,"Why is this RFC here and not on its own page?"-- The instructions on WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_articles say just to put it in an different section on the article talk page.--Alecmconroy 11:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks also for the comment on the Opus Dei page. Can I ask-- would it be appropriate for me to reinstate the rewrite that User:Ran9876 reverted? It would be my "4th" edit to the page today assuming, but again I'm dealing with single purpose accounts who seem to be promoting an agenda on an article that has a long history of sock/meat puppets. I have never ever been involved in an "edit war" before and have never even considered issues of 3rr before, but as I said, I don't think I'm dealing with normal run of the mill editors who are just acting in good faith. User:Pradeshkava-- 60 edits since July, every one of which promotes Opus Dei? User:Ran9876, for example, has less than 50 edits over the past 9 months-- almost all pro-catholic POV, and despite his extreme inactivity, yet he shows up within hours of me making rewriting the article, ready to revert?

I mean, I pride myself on being a very conscientious, calm, civil, non-edit-warring type of editor, but, at some point, it seems likes i'm just being taken advantage of, and the thing won't ever get fixed, when these <50 edit, pov-pusher types can "outrevert" the good-faith editors so easily.

Anyway, if you feel it's apropriate for me to revert and keep editing the rewrite to try to improve it, please let me know. I had planned on fixing all the citations in the new rewrite, but all the warring got me side tracked. Similarly, if you think the rewrite helps, please restore it so I can keep making minor edits to it without worrying about 3RR. As is, if I go to fix a citation, the whole new page will get restored and it will be a "revert".

--Alecmconroy

Please don't risk breaking 3RR yourself, that would be a bad idea. Just cos they are single issue folk doesn't mean they have no right to edit. There is always tomorrow. At the moment, there appears to me to be a blatant lack of reasons why the new version should be reverted given on the talk page. For outsiders, the "mediation" issue clouds things somewhat - is that pre or post rewrite? William M. Connolley 13:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I wouldn't violate 3RR-- I just wondered whether sock/meatpuppet style accounts fall under the vanalism exemptions. As for pre-and post-- a little of both. The rewrite started out as just a "rough concept" I created for the purposes of mediation, and I worked on it some more since that time. It was pretty clear in mediation that a solution between all the parties wasn't going to be reached, and I took some time off to be extra certain I was in the right. Because I didn't edit war on the issue then and mediation ended without me changing the article, the OD members have been declaring "The mediator ruled for us" ever since, but I don't recall him making any such statements lol. --Alecmconroy 13:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paradoxtom

Is edit warring at the J4J article again. At what point do you think this would merit a community ban? He's easily exhausted my patience at least. JoshuaZ 05:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've given him another week and a warning of longer William M. Connolley 09:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Sorry about that. I guess as a father of small kids you will be busier than I, SqueakBox 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Hobgoblin

This user has created another account and has made a personal attack on my talk page, by blanking and posting "you dumbass." Shakam 22:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:User:Jghfutikdpe3

This user is a sockpuppet of blocked user User:The hobgoblin, identical user page and interest in Mulatto, perhaps a further block would discourage him from continuing in this manner and making very nasty and highly illegal personal attacks [9]. Also see another sock of his, User:AmyCrescent. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jghfutikdpe3 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) SqueakBox 22:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jg is blocked. I've just blocked AC as a probable sock William M. Connolley 00:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that it matters anymore, but. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shakam&oldid=91010635#psuuedoscience Shakam 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting the block. By the way, I reread the 3RR and I do see your point. --Lee Hunter 14:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your semiprotection of the homeopathy article. The anons in question were doing nothing wrong. JoshuaZ 15:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

: Oh, it seems you didn't end up doing it. So never mind. Sorry. JoshuaZ 15:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh you did, but didn't put a template up. I see no reason to do this in this case and note that as soon as you did it User:Leifern reverted. Furthermore, anons weren't the only runs reverting matters. JoshuaZ 15:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. There is too much reverting there, at least this stops the anons doing it. If thats not enough it will have to go up to full prot William M. Connolley 16:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In so far as the anons are acting as legitimate contributors I would strongly support full protection over semi-prot. There's no obvious reason in this case to discriminate against the anons. JoshuaZ 16:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is a perfect case for descriminating against anons. Jimbo has something to say about them:

• Users with "anonymous IP numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits." -- Jimbo Wales[10]

-- Fyslee 13:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The anons are doing a fair amount of reverting... why not discuss on the talk page? William M. Connolley 16:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people are doing reverting which is one reason full prot would make more sense. Not to worry, discussion is occuring. JoshuaZ 16:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This dispute needs some kind of intervention but I'm not sure how to proceed. I've done an RFC, but so far haven't received any responses. As far as I can see, it should be a simple case of following the categorization guidelines "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Do you have any suggestions? --Lee Hunter 16:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

Thanks for the unblock... i am in heavy editing in the Islam related articles. Man, i get so frustrated about that talk page template! Don't you agree that it is vandalism to repeatedly remove it without valid arguments? Peace. --Striver 23:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi William. I agree waiting is wiser - but since there was a direct request from the Editor I thought I should act on it ASAP. it never occurred to me that this would count as a revert, and as you see he didn't think it was either. I quite understand why you blocked this becuase it definitely looks like a revert from the diffs. But now that it is clear that neither of the parties concerned considers it a revert I think we should note for the record that this was an (entirely understandable) mistake, just in case people get the impression that I am a deliberate breaker of the 3RR. Best. NBeale 22:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Gladio 3rr

You blocked User talk:65.185.190.240 for putting up the hoax tag on the page of Operation Gladio. S/he's doing this again without explaining on the talk page why s/he does this. I've reverted hir entry once and left a message on hir talk page saying s/he should first discuss it on the talk page or at least leave a reason there why s/he did it. The user put it up again. Maybe someone who has an account on wiki can explain the use of a talk page to hir. 81.165.161.21 10:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked 65. for 3RR; thankfully that isn't recurring. As to whether hoax is appropriate... I don't know. I would have thought a section discussing it is better than a tag. But I'm not going to get involved William M. Connolley 10:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page block deleted

• I saw that you cautioned User:Asgardian for removing a block notice from his talk page. Seeing that Ghetteaux removed a block from his/her own talk page with no repercussions, I would report this to the person who posted the block, but that person is apparently not an active Wikipedian. Wryspy 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If they aren't active, what are they doing posting blocks? People get carried away over this. Restore the notice once, maybe, then do something more interesting... William M. Connolley 09:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the models

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

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

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

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

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

Yes and no. "GCM" means the full set of code, on the whole. Ie, big set of PDEs and params on top. But also, in general, it means a specific config and setup. "hadcm3" means a given code version, plus given ancils (e.g. land sea mask), plus a given resolution. You *can* run it at, say, higher rez; but there is no guarantee that its better. But yes, I know there were various projects with higher rez versions... the problem is that because of the about grid^3-4 dependency, you can't run much higher rez, if the model is anywhere close to state-of-the-art William M. Connolley 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would you consider the edit below to be vandalism, exempt from 3RR?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&curid=113183&diff=91946832&oldid=91916187 Sm1969 07:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Only marginally so, better dealt with by consensus of editors. Definitely not encyclopeadic, of course William M. Connolley 13:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet Beaumontproject

I notice you banned a sockpuppet {Bangomcgurk} of Beaumontproject. It would appear that this is also a sockpuppet of Vintagekits. Evidence: History page of Joseph MacManus @ 11:22, 17 November 2006. Note that Beaumontproject replies stating they were happy with my edits but I'd been negotiating with user Vintagekits. Also, banjomcgurk puts in an appearance above. This is more serious now as the two usernames are backing each other (at least one concurrent post) here: wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)#IRA articles: usage of the word "volunteer" Weggie 22:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Can you advise please?

Get a grip Weggie, I could say Demuirge is a sockpuppet of yours simply because the two of you edit on the volunteer page and have the same opinion! Vintagekits 16:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... I'm not sure. Lay the evidence out somewhat more clearly in terms of actual diffs and I might have an opinion William M. Connolley 17:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of BhaiSaab

You blocked BhaiSaab for 3RR here. Can you review your block? The 2nd and 3rd reverts were vandalism-reverts. Builder w was constantly replacing Religion of Peace with Islam [11]. Regards. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hope it's okay, William, I'm going to unblock this fellow. Looks like someone transcribing the entire Islam article into Religion of Peace and BhaiSaab reverted this twice. Please feel free to bonk me on the head with a hammer if you disagree :) -- Samir धर्म 10:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was a bit quick off the mark on this. Not sure why BS didn't mail me. Somewhat annoyed with H for the report (as well as with self for not checking) William M. Connolley 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but he used popups to revert a lot of text repeatedly. It looked like a content dispute to me, not vandalism. However, the user he reverted out was new, and I have had bad experience with newbie trolls so am not entirely unsympathetic after the fact.Nonetheless, it was neither of our faults, just a hiccup in the checks-and-balances system. Hkelkar 12:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that you fell for this one, Mr. Connolley. Had I been online at the time I would have emailed you and I have no idea who emailed Samir. BhaiSaab ^talk 14:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I never violated the 3RR

Thanks for only blocking me for only 3 hours, however I never violated the 3 RR. My last reverts concerned something that was recently added to the very start of the article and had nothing to do with the first reverts I made. Disciplinarty action should be taken against whoever made the false report__Whatdoyou 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I advise you to read WP:3RR more carefully, and in any event not to get so close in future. WP:1RR is also worth reading William M. Connolley 17:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a question

I justed wanted to ask what version should be put in for the "previous version reported to" for 3RR reports. I think that there might have been some confusion as to this in a recent 3RR report, I just wanted to clarify. Thanks and cheers! Baristarim 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be the version (nearly) identical to the one that the putative offender has reverted to. In your case, it wasn't, it was the opposite William M. Connolley 18:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayyavazhi

I was blocked by you complained by User:Venu62 for 24 hours complaining as 'I violated the 3RR'. Please see what had happened before that.

Three districts are declared as a holiday by the govt for an Ayyavazhi festival in Swamithope. More over many unversity books as well as historians published books as Ayyavazhi as an autonomouse religion by its elements (scriptures, ideology...) . I cited all thease things with University papers and historian views many many times earlier to the same user. See [12] [13] [14][15] [16](scroll down) He then remain quite for some times and after a day or two without any discussion he use to remove Ayyavazhi. Please see the edit summary. In every my reverts, I asked them to discuss before reverting. No one User:Bharatveer and User:Venu62 replied but reverted. Starting from here to here they reverted five times (with in 24 hours) and removed the contents cited with university papers as sources. Since they two have collectively six (3+3) Reverts, they complain myself as violating the 3RR rule.

Once again please see the edit summary i've written in each of my edits. When Bharatveer felt that he was personally attacked by my self I went to his user page and apologises for that. Even then no one discussed on that topic, but User:Venu62 reverted continuusly without discussing.

If the rules of wiki is so, then if two users decided to revert a third persons edit, they can going on edits closely following him. Since these two guys collectively can revert (3+3) times then the third person would be marked as violating and could be blocked. No matter about the valid citations and the references.

Also I noticed commonly, this user User:Venu62 use to note this What links here section of Ayyavazhi page and complain to many user as spamm spammer etc... I was intrested in Ayyavazhi. So Iam writing Ayyavazhi articles. And I give appropriate links form other topics. One who is intrested in Hinduism will edit and write many hiduism related wors, and who is intrested towards India, then he will contribute to Indian works. They use to spend more effort and time the more they are devoted to the topic. If it was called as spamm then Indian users want to be called as Indian spammers, and Hindu users should be called as Hindu spammers and etc...

If Tamil Nadu is a state in India, then unavoidably it should be be noted in India article as its Sub-national entity. As if Ayyavazhi is a religion it needs a mention in appropriate religion related article. I've already cited with evn University papers for its notablility, its spread across South India etc..

I've tried many times to tell this to him. How ever he don't understand.

Also he told in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR as, "He will not listen to reason as numerous discussions". I answered to every users. See here. - Paul 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Venu62 have reverted my edits again and in the edit summary he noted, "You may have cited it, but it is irrelevant to this article. We cannot include each and every sect present in Tamil Nadu into this article".

That is what i cited with university papers. For the 'thousands of worship centers' (notability) and for the Autonomous structure of the religion (not a sect). Iam reverting the article. Please help - Paul 09:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The other user User:Bharatveer now reverted the page without discussion. Please help. I made university papers as citations; I was blocked for 24 hours. Please help. see what is going on here - Paul 09:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be having a content dispute. I'm just enforcing 3RR. Please see WP:DR William M. Connolley 09:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:208.250.137.2 and User:BryanFromPalatine the same?

I think the fellow you blocked for 3RR on the Free Republic article has come back as an IP address. --BenBurch 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that DNSstuff.com reports that 208.250.137.2 is in Palatine, IL, the same place that BryanFromPalatine claims to be from...--BenBurch 12:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be causing any great problems William M. Connolley 12:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Other than trying to create a false assertion of consensus, in talk, no. No edits to the main space. It just offends me when people step around blocks like this. He only had to wait 24 Hrs. --BenBurch 12:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, now that the 24 hours has expired, am I allowed to remove that hideous notice from my Talk page? It's cluttering up the place. And Ben: yes, that's exactly, precisely correct, "No edits to the main space." I repeat: Free Republic has thousands of real, live conservatives, so what in the world makes you think I need a sock puppet? -- BryanFromPalatine 19:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove it. Yes its hideous. But yes you earned it. Wait a month; space is not short William M. Connolley 20:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Australian

Hello there - I saw your mention in the Australian Newspaper this weekend. I presume you know about it. It seems someone interviewed you. I found your user page thru the article's mention of Llangrannog. But your in the UK, right? I wonder what the source of the article was? by a Mick Brown.--Merbabu 01:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall anything... where is the article? William M. Connolley 09:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's (almost) the article that appeared in the Telegraph some time ago [17]. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK, yes I remember that one. Shame I'm so near the end :-( William M. Connolley 11:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hold-On tag broken?

I'm still learning the ropes, but something seems wrong with this tag v. the speedy tag. This is in relation to User:Corrosiv-O I reported 3RR and you blocked. A bot tagged his User Talk page which still exists, saying no related Article (user page) and suggesting use of the hold-on tag. I tagged it as such as shouldn't the warnings survive his return? Anyway, as you can see, the tag kicked out an erronious error, despite the template asking me to consider using it. See talk for User:Corrosiv-O Rcnet 12:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, please delete this comment. Sorry, I mixed up the user name and the article name, which were the same. Thanks for all the hard work you are doing here. /unwatch. Rcnet 12:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK... William M. Connolley 13:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gone fishin'

In 12 days I'm going ice fishing in Canada. Anyone wanna come? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Great Scrivener (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] EPICA and vostok picture

Good evening, I think the picture about delta o-18 in Vostok and EPICA pictures are wrong. They should be delta-D to have that values. Nice work, keep on anyway! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kibbutz luc (talk • contribs) 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

You're right. Thanks. I've fixed the text. One day I'll fix the figure caption... William M. Connolley 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)