User talk:William M. Connolley/Old Talk 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Say Hello To Sanchez!

Say hello to SANCHEZ!
Say hello to SANCHEZ!

I just wanted to thank you for agreeing with me on the Duncharris RfC and helping with my political subproject (please feel free to tell others by the way.) For your kindness, I award you Sanchez, my psychotic pet bear from Latin America. I've told him to be nice, but i'd still pipe in the Samba music 23 hours a day. However, he's great with dealing with any people out there you might have problems with :-) karmafist 05:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

He looks like a proper bruiser. Thanks! William M. Connolley 09:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Noted; thanks. William M. Connolley 22:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] ENSO graph

Your wonderful ENSO graph (Image:Soi-1876-2004.png) is now nearly a year old and there is a bit more data. The last month has seen the SOI in La Nina territory which is wonderful since I like rain in an Australian winter.

Anyway, I was wondering if you could a) Update the graph, and b) Add a 36-month running mean. I have no idea how to program in IDL (or anything else for that matter) but, if my reading of the IDL script is correct, it shouldn't take much effort (I hope).--One Salient Oversight 09:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've done it (it wasn't much effort...). Now... Image:Soi-1876-2005.png. William M. Connolley 19:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC).
Looks brilliant. Thanks! --One Salient Oversight 03:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troika

I have suggested a small panel of users competent in science to evaluate editors of scientific articles. Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2/Workshop#Troika. Fred Bauder 20:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Fred - this is an interesting idea. I'll think it over and comment. William M. Connolley 22:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Nrcprm2026's graph

You said that you "seconded" an outside opinion that my extrapolation was reasonable, among other things, and then you tried to claim that you had not seconded that opinion. You have said that the connection between radiative forcing and the increasing strength of storms is weak, but you have provided no statistics in support of that position. You have not proposed any means by which increased atmospheric energy might manifest only as local thermal energy instead of thermal energy and increased windspeed. You have ignored reports of increasing global windspeed which you would be aware of as a matter of course in your profession. Your departure from the norms of honesty, manners, due care, and scientific integrity render you unfit to be an administrator. When will you be honest about the increasing average windspeeds and the incontrovertable fact that they are caused by radiative forcing? You are clearly aware of the basic principles that increased temperature leads to increased evaporation. Why don't you understand that increased evaporation means, all other things being equal, increased precipitation, and thus more laminar and turbulent flow in the atmosphere? I can not see why you do not want to take the lead in explaining these basic principles. —James S. 05:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Nr: you accuse me of dishonesty but you're wrong; you're twisting peoples words in a desperate attempt - which it must now be obvious to you is going to fail - to get your pet graph into the wiki climate articles. I said "If so, I second my own opinion, as well as Gavins" - my own opinion was to not include the graph. Gavin did *not* tell you that the extrapolation was reasonable - he *did* tell you that most of the increase is societal; and that the suitability of the graph would depend on context. William M. Connolley 11:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC).
Gavin said:
Costs of weather-related damages are indeed soaring, and if you had added in data up to 2005, you would have found the rises continuing as extrapolated in the graph. However, the *cause* of the increasing costs is not evident from the graph. Analyses for purely US damages indicated that the vast majority of the increase is due to greater development in areas that are vulnerable (coasts, Florida, flood plains, etc.), rather than an increase in storm activity or flood frequency. Data from more widespread sources indicates that most of the rise there too is development related, though there is a possibility of a climate effect. Given that coastal development is unlikely to stop any time soon, it is a pretty conservative assumption to guess that the rise in damages will continue. Estimates of the climate change component of that will likely increase in the tropics, but will likely always be a smaller component than the development change. So in that sense, the graph *itself* has a neutral POV. But you would need to examine the context in which it is used to see whether that package is similarly neutral. I'm not sure that using an Excel curve fitting package really counts as original research (technically I guess it is, but it wouldn't be sufficient for a research article).
Note that Gavin's description isn't quite correct, because the graph that I asked him to comment on seriously underpredicts the preliminary actual for 2005 (plus, I didn't use Excel.) In any case, I also find your description of 66-90% certainty as "weak" troubling. Where do you draw the line on "weak"? —James S. 22:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Gavin doesn't call your extrapolation reasonable. And in any event you're avoiding my main point, that the costs are mostly non-GW-related and so don't belong on the GW pages. As for the attribution: I agree with the IPCC. But thats not what your text originally said. These are subtle matters; your text was subtly wrong. Think about it. William M. Connolley 22:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC).
I disagree with your literal interpretation of Gavin's characterization. And I think the Assoc. of British Insurers report (and the peer reviewed study cited beside it in the exchange you pointed me to) strongly suggests that the costs are mostly non-GW-related. —James S. 10:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the expt subject stuff. Now you need to reconsider the rest. As to the point: if the costs are non-GW-related, then the graph doesn't belong on the GW pages. That was my point. William M. Connolley 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Cold fusion

Hi William, sorry for bothering you, but I wonder if you could help with a problem (since you probably have more experience than anybody on Wikipedia with scientific POV disputes!). The foxes appear to be guarding the henhouse in the cold fusion article. Could you have a look at the talk page, and also Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Cold fusion? I don't know anything about cold fusion (except that the vast majority of the physics community doesn't believe it), and don't really know how to handle the situation of a small cabal of highly motivated people trying to advance their point of view, with nobody able to effectively contradict them. On the cosmology pages, I'm used to knowing the literature as well as anyone, but here I'm lost... obviously, it's not your area of expertise either (unless you're keeping something from us?), but if you could offer some guidance I'd be much obliged. Thanks. –Joke 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Glad that my painful experience might come in useful. I think we've probably crossed edits on this; anyway, what I've done there is probably clear enough! I've commented there. Dealing with a small cabal is best done by raising the issue amongst a larger group of editors, and this has now I think been done, possibly successfully. William M. Connolley 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] CF

Ok, done. I think you're way out of line removing the disputed tag, though. Can we at least discuss this? ObsidianOrder 16:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, we can discuss this - t:CF is the place. I'd like to see a section for discussing the header, with a *concise* list of objections. The discussion there is far too long and diffuse, and mostly applies to different versions of the page, to justify the tag as it stands. William M. Connolley 16:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
William - you must have missed the *concise* list of objections I posted when I first added the tag: Talk:Cold fusion#Problems with the FA version. I think you can understand why I was rather upset when you simply deleted the tag several times without responding to my specific objections? Perhaps, in the spirit of cooperation, *you* can add the tag now? ObsidianOrder 17:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll look over your list. But no, I'm not going to re-add the tag just yet. William M. Connolley 17:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Rfa thanks

Hello William. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think you need to be notified on this...

There is someone who is trying to impersonate you so I reported to the admin and have him blocked. SYSS Mouse 21:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that. He's been blocked now. How curious... William M. Connolley 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] I have nominated you for adminship

As I promised, I have nominated you for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2. Good luck - I have a very strong feeling this will turn out well! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 13:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Go accept and answer your questions, you'll make a great Admin. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks and thanks. Off I go... William M. Connolley 15:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC).
Dbiv listed your RFA, but as I understand it, it should stay delisted until you answer the questions. And, also, I think the timer only starts when you fully accept. So don't forget to list it when you answer the questions, but don't feel any rush to get it done, since it remains "hidden" until such time as you are ready. Guettarda 15:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Although by that time you may already have more than the proposed support for Adminship, if the current trend continues. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sea level rise

Seems there was a bit of interesting activity at Sea level rise last night :-) And Leuliett had added his explanations to the old altimetry section - I copied his comments to the bottom of the page for findability. Vsmith 16:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that! William M. Connolley 21:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] The 3RR question

Hi there. I just thought the answer a little on the too-soft, too-hard side. If someone has been warned before they hit 3RR and carry on regardless, then I'd be surprised if there are many admins who would simply wag a finger. Similarly, if they were warned after their 4th revert, and carried on, a single additional revert would probably be plenty to earn them their block. But that's less important than the original intent of the question. It is intended to ask about what you would do if someone were deliberately gaming the 3RR; obeying the letter, but not the spirit. Your answer didn't seem to address that, but did seem to imply that if someone always, deliberately, reverts at just under 4/24 they acquire immunity. The statement that "If you obey the letter of the law... then its not really my business as an admin", is not really true since misbehaviour of any kind should be squelched, even if it adheres to the letter of rules and such. It's the business of an admin to judge for themselves whether the behaviour needs stopping or not. That's an individual interpretation, however. But a good degree of flexibility of mind is needed to make sure we are not hamstrung by our own procedures. -Splashtalk 23:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I realise I mostly answered not your question. Thats because it reminded me of something I'd intended to say but forgot.
You say If someone has been warned before they hit 3RR and carry on regardless, then I'd be surprised if there are many admins who would simply wag a finger.. But I think you've misinterpreted me. I don't think I've said that. If you mean my First time violators get a warning, what I meant is, they get a warning, and if they continue after the warning then they probably get a block.
As for the "gaming"... this becomes difficult. But in my experience, 4 reverts in 24 hours 5 minutes doesn't get you blocked (and yes I do have experience of this... though I've learnt better now I hope). As an admin (especially as a new one) I certainly wouldn't block someone under 3RR unless they had broken the letter of the law. By then its not really my business as an admin. If the behaviour is repeated, then others need to raise it as a user RFC I guess I meant exactly that: if the not-quite-4-RR'ing continues, then (assuming failure on the talk page) the next step is an user RFC, done by the editors of the page (though as an experienced editor I'd be happy to help; but that's not a task that requires any admin privs). Thats what I'd do as a normal editor if struck by this problem. William M. Connolley 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

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

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

[edit] Sockpuppet at cold fusion

Hi William, the user STemplar who reverted your edits of cold fusion has been created today [1] and it is easy to imagine that it is a sockpuppet. Unfortunately there are too many people who call you Connelly here - like Caroline Thompson and Steve Schulin - so I can't say more. :-) --Lumidek 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi William. No, user STemplar is not a sockpuppet, though he is a newbie. Your witchhunt speaks ill of you Lumidek. STemplar 06:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SEWilco

Do you have an opinion regarding this and that? Dragons flight 17:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Gosh. I'd half seen the first; not the second. I do wish SEW could stop being a pain. Opinion: I think I'm too close to this to comment neutrally & I won't comment there. I'm sure SEW's RFA-notification-spam was malign; OTOH I incline towards SS's free speech attitude. I'm going to leave a note on his talk page. William M. Connolley 17:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Troika: more

At my RFA, GangofOne asked:

Now concerning the Reddi arbitration, as he mentions below, Fred Bauder launched a "trial balloon" Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2/Workshop#Troika :
"1) Art Carlson (talk \u2022 contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk \u2022 contribs) shall appoint a third user competent in basic science. These three users shall have the power to ban any user who disrupts the editing of articles which relate to science from those articles which they are disrupting. Should either of them decline to serve, the other shall make two appointments...."
This is a rather stunning reversal of wiki customs, I think obviously, in the concentration of power. Art Carlson declined. Dr. Connolley loves the idea however. I am skeptical. But as a suggestion of a way to reassure me and others, I suggested that Dr. Connolley pretend he already had this power and explicitly tell us where he would have excercised it, say in the Reddi edits, or others of the past half a year or so. Surely he must have a good idea of what he would do. That way we could all see the wisdom of his decisions. However, he has not taken up the suggestion, (yet). --GangofOne 14:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And I answered:

To answer the troika first: Art was unenthusiastic, but hasn't actually declined. I didn't "love" it: I said However, I think this would be a major policy step. For the record, I'll accept if its enacted, but other less drastic proposals come to mind: ... then this proposal would give the Troika unprecedented powers and I suspect might well lead to community resistance. In other words, I was cautious. I haven't answered your question there, because I don't know what my answer would be. Note, BTW, that it was me that advertsied the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics & at pseudophysics, because I wanted to get reaction from others who would probably be interested but not otherwise have seen it.

There is lots more to say on this; and maybe now is a good time to say some of it.

Firstly, I'm honoured that FB considers me suitable for such a role. And its clear that the arbcomm does need some help in understanding its science based cases. As I've made clear (I hope) on that page, there are other less drastic possibilities for doing this. Before spending more time considering exactly how such a proposal might work were it enacted, I'd like to see more opinion from the arbcomm: so far this is FB's "trial balloon" and if the other arbcomm are going to shoot it down, there is little point considering it further.

Secondly, I had hoped that my comments there were fairly neutral. I certainly repudiate GoO's assertion that I "loved it". I want to see more comment from the other arbcomm: if they feel they need this kind of committee/advice, then we can work to find the best format and powers for it. The proposal, as framed, would give the Troika a lot of power, in some senses more power than the arbcomm. There are no explicit constraints in the proposal; however there is an implicit constraint (apart from the fact that we're reasonable folk) that (a) if we go wild, no admin will enfore what we decide, and (b) IWGW the arbcomm will revoke either the individuals or the proposal.

You voted for Infrared and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month!
Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

[edit] ArbCom work page

Nice idea for a page - I put up a similar page. I just wondered whether you were aware of the interim results page which is a good way of identifying the no hope candidates who are already well out of the race. Hope you don't mind me spotting the page in your contribs history. David | Talk 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No I don't mind at all: especially since it lead to you pointing out the interim results, which is indeed useful. Thanks! William M. Connolley 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] I have moved a user subpage

Hope you will forgive my audacious boldness, but I decided to follow WP:BOLD and thought you would not object to me moving your complaints and endoresements page to "complaints and endorsements" ;-). Just to prevent surprise however, I am of course notifying you here, and you may of course request I revert it if you dislike my audacity. ;-) Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I shall instead offer you my thanks. Again my wife had noticed that last night (she doesn't have an account and refuses to get one, she just tracks me via contribs as a sort of soap opera...) and I said Duuuuhhhh and hadn't got round to fixing it! William M. Connolley 12:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] An article that may interest you

As a spin off from discussions in the talk pages of Shoshone National Forest, I commenced the article Glacial recession and was told that this may be of some interest to you. Anyway, if you're interested, edit away.--MONGO 01:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Its now on my watchlist and I hope to contribute. William M. Connolley 10:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Janusz Karpinski, about aetherometry

Excuse me, please, this is Janusz Karpinski, writing just after midnight on January 13. I am curious why such person as you, obviously a scientist, spends time so without point, quarrelling about aetherometry. Why do you give permission to keep this article in Wikipedia which you can not verify and on a subject which is well known only to few people? An encyclopedia is a bad place for this and it is damaging to the dignity to spend time making such bad blood in such pettyness. Wikipedia has policy that says it should not allow such articles. Is it not that you think that this policy is wise and upholding to dignity? I am writing not only to you but also to other few scientists who are involved in aetherometry fighting now. Also excuse that I am new to writing in Wikipedia.

I think you misunderstand wiki. I don't give permission to keep this article in Wikipedia - how can I? On the contrary, I voted to delete the article [2] on the grounds that it was a waste of time. Sadly I was in a minority. Now its there, it needs to be kept sane as far as possible.
Also - welcome to wikipedia. If you plan to contribute (I hope you do) its a good idea to get an account: its easy, free and convenient. William M. Connolley 10:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

Thank you, I now made an account and it was easy as you said. But it is hard to contribute because of my not very good English. The time is close to noon on January 13. I looked at the page which you pointed out, in which you voted to delete. It is a very confusing vote because several people changed minds in the middle. But perhaps the people who voted to keep the article did not understand Wikipedia policy. From what I saw, Wikipedia has two policies that do not permit this article. One is called "Undue weight" and says "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Aetherometry is completely marginal and does not belong.

I agree. Hence my vote. However, you are slightly misinterpreting the policy: that is mostly addressing a question of the weight to various opinions within an existing article (e.g. flat earthers on shape-of-the-earth). As you see, it contains an explicit note about ancillary articles; which arguably aeth is.

The other policy is called "verifiability" and says "Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be verified by readers and other editors. "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources." This policy is exactly to prevent unproductive quarrelling back and forth which cannot be solved and is damaging to reputation. Editors by themselves should not have to go and reproduce scientific experiments and study many days to verify that a theory is science or is pseudoscience. If no reliable sources exist for the one view or the other view, the material should not be published. To me it seems that understanding these policies one must vote to delete the article. Otherwise it results in unscientific fighting that cannot be solved with dignity. Sincerely, Janusz.

Here I disagree. The fact that aetherometrists believe this that and the other is verifiable. Whether the theory is true or not is another matter; my opinions there are obvious I trust. It is not true that pseudoscience is automatically excluded from wiki. It is true that pseudoscience should be labelled as such and described in a neutral way and not allowed to pass itself off as accepted. William M. Connolley 17:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

Aha, thank you very much for helping in my understanding. But then another question arises for me. You say that pseudoscience should be labeled as such. I see that in the definition of the category "Pseudoscience" it writes: "This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method.". So if the policy applies to this, then also to put the label "pseudoscience" on something requires to "refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher." But if in reputable journals there is nothing published about the field, then it is not possible to support claim that the field is alleged by the critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with scientific method, which has these defining principles in Wikipedia: "The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings and orderings of the following:

  • Characterizations (Quantifications, observations and measurements)
  • Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)
  • Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypotheses and theories)
  • Experiments (tests of all of the above)."

Please dont think I agree with people like Mr. Zappo. I agree with you that Aetherometry probably is very wrong, because it sounds crazy, but I think this is not enough to say in Wikipedia it is "pseudoscience". Am I misunderstanding? Sincerely, Janusz. 4.156.147.17 18:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC) I learned to do this now. Aha, but I forgot to sign in before. Januszkarp 19:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You have now signed - well done. Now follow the redlink on your username to add some text and you will become a proper blueuser. The point you make - that according to policy it needs to be disputed by the sci community, which it isn't, because its totally ignored - is a good one. I shall go and have a look there. In the meantime, have a look at Talk:Aetherometry#Current_state_of_article. William M. Connolley 19:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

Thank you again. I am blue now. Januszkarp 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin Star. Beware the power. Wear it in good health. --Ancheta Wis 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Admin Star. Beware the power. Wear it in good health. --Ancheta Wis 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, Janus, my stance happens to be, that aetherometry is highly implausible, but it can exist as an article to in fact give readers information (as it is borderline borderline notable, given the google test) and in fact, warn them off. We are one of the top google results for it, after all. I initially voted delete (and I was in fact one of the nominators for its deletion), but I changed my mind after I saw the aetherometrists realised the existence of the article could in fact hurt their cause. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 15:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this is Janusz, but it is naturally pleasant for me when you think I am Janus, who was Roman god of enterings and exitings. Yes, it could of course hurt people to have article in Wikipedia when article is misinforming because it contains bias not based on existing reputable materials. But it is in my view not encyclopedic to make articles just with purpose of hurting people, even if personally we want to. Wikipedia has standards of verifiability, and this is encyclopedic. I hope I am not saying this impolitely, it is hard for me to say things in right tone in English. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 17:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats...

...on the second most highly supported RFA to date and also, the most highly opposed successful RFA (since to be successful with that many oppose votes you would have to have surpassed second-place Func's 112 support). Now you just have to wait for the b'crats to wake up (and people keep saying we don't need more bureaucrats!) Guettarda 16:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So have you thought about whether you want to go thanking all your supporters and ... "fans"? Could take a while. Dragons flight 16:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
To put this fame into perspective, I'll have to mention de:User:Unscheinbar (re-)elected to adminship with 158/55/20 [3]. Rather ironically contrasting his nick. --Pjacobi 16:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
So this record is set for the entire Wikipedia, languages and all, and not just for en: ? Oooh, congratulations indeed, then. ;-) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 15:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Second place in en. BDAbramson got 183 support votes. And, obviously, Unscheinbar beats William on project-wise oppose votes. Guettarda 15:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who supported my RFA, I've put a note on my user page. I'm not going to thank everyone: hopefully this won't offend them, its just that according to theory, admin is duty not priviledge, so thanking people is inappropriate. Oh wait, I just said thanks above. Arghhh... Anyway, I *am* going to go off an thank a few carefully selected people. William M. Connolley 20:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 16:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your record-setting RfA! --King of All the Franks 17:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you, and all others. I've been away for a day or so... my first time offline for a while. William M. Connolley 19:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Thank you! and Congrats!

Thanks for supporting me on my Rfa, WMC! I appreciate your trust. I think you have wonderful taste in voting too. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. And congratulations also! KillerChihuahua?!? 17:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology and Astronomy revert warrior RFC'd

Congatulations on your absurdly deferred adminship getting through at last! Those were some of the best Oppose votes I've ever seen. :-) The subject of astrology came up and made me think of you and your staunch defense of science and rationality on this site, so, just in case you're not feeling fully extended by aethero.. mo.. m .. aethe.. never mind, and global warming, you might feel like looking in on Requests for comment/Theodore7. Just a suggestion. It's a wild ride. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats :-). I'll take a look at the RFC tomorrow. William M. Connolley 21:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Some help?

Congratulations on your adminship.

I'm writing an article for the university newspaper about this conference/talk thing. Do you have any suggestions? Questions you want asked, points you want made? I don't have any questions now, since the conference hasn't happened yet. But well, it would be nice. Thanks.--Fangz 22:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... its a bit impacts-y for me. From With the changing climate, we can expect more natural disasters and further human and environmental suffering. I would inquire: but isn't it true that most of the increase in natural disaster costs comes from more building on the coasts, etc? (see the graph stuff over at t:global warming). They seem to be taking the science for granted, which is not unreasonable, but it means that it doesn't intersect with "my stuff" so much. See-also http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2006/01/lovelock-were-all-going-to-die.html and other writings... William M. Connolley 21:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] RfC on User:Theodore7

Thank you for endorsing Bishonen's outside view in this RfC. Is there any reason why you did not endore the statement of the dispute as well? Cheers, —Ruud 20:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Only that a fair number of people had already; that I was thinking of maintaining some impartiality in case I got involved later; and that T7 seemed to have stopped editing so it mattered rather less. I'm not opposed to signing up; I may well if the dispute continues. William M. Connolley 20:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Congrats!

Good to see you made adminship :-) I'm glad an excellent user like yourself became one. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You've been doing a super job with the global warming and related articles. Adminship is well-deserved. Congratulations. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! William M. Connolley 16:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Henry Farrell (political scientist)

Hello - thanks for bringing the undeletion to my attention, I've responded on Deletion Review. Congratulations on your recent adminship, by the way. —Cleared as filed. 23:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

User_talk:Woohookitty#FYI Zeq 17:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Noted; thanks. I'll wait a bit to see what others say. William M. Connolley 18:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
As you can see, this is Ian 3rd violation and this one is also a violation of WP:POINT to get the article protected in the way he just wanted it. As I have told you yesterady there is a clear history of violations on this article that are not punished if they come from the pro-palestinian propeganda side (Zero twice and Ian twice) and now we are getting into the 3rd time Iam makes a vilaotion which is not resulting in a block.

It is becoming a wikipedia habbit to enforce some policies (NPOV, 3RR) only on one side of the debate.

Zeq 19:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you for the warning. I have self-un-reverted on No Gun Ri. --James S. 20:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thats good. TDC has withdrawn his report, presumably in response. William M. Connolley 20:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Cultural bias

Comunication between people is very delicate matter. Over millions of years of eviolation people learned to identify facial expression, body languge and tone of voice. All those are also very "culture specific".

Here in wiki we don't have the benefit of all those aids of communication. We only use writing which for some of us (my self for example) is not even a languge we master as mother tone. It is very presamptuace to deduce from that "writing only communication" what is my tone. Zeq 20:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why I pointed out to you that saying that admins must do this or that is a bad idea. We don't know what you meant; we can only take your tone from your words. William M. Connolley 21:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
The whole point is that there is no way you can not "detect" tone from such limited communication. Zeq 06:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
We seem to be going round in circles. One last try: in written communications, you come across as far too insistent. For all I know you're a really nice person in real life, but you don't come across like that here. Therefore (unless thats how you want people to think of you) you should moderate your words; avoid using must, etc etc. Do this especially if English is not your native language. William M. Connolley 11:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC).


[edit] 3RR entry Cleared as Filed

The page at the top says it is for dicussion. The article's talk page is not the appropriate spot for dicussion of a 3RR. I have tried to make my case, and you have deleted it. — Dzonatas 19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You said nothing that you haven't said before. Stop wasting your time on this (and others). Go out and put in some useful edits. William M. Connolley 19:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC).
Thank you for not blocking me on an almost 3RR, sorry for almost violating it. —Ruud 20:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a troll

After vandalizing Belarusian language and History of Belarus article (and totally dirupting editing of these two articles), the Russian troll Kuban Kazak continued his activities on the article about my native town Vorsha ([4]). I would like to ask Wikipedia admins and Wikipedia community members as what I should do in such a situation. Thank you very much. --rydel 02:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The language article clearly has a problem. But Vorsha doesn't (yet) and Kk hasn't edited History of Belarus this year. There is very little discussion on the language article; you should talk there. William M. Connolley 11:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Longest case

Hmm, irritating. I concede defeat. Ultramarine 11:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! :-) Not that I wouldn't have wished my own case somewhat shorter... William M. Connolley 12:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Hogeye

I noticed you recently blocked User:Hogeye for a 3rr violation. I'd encourage you to investigate this user's history. He has been blocked a number of times for disruption, chronic vandalism, 3rr rule violations, personal attacks, etc. For the past year or so the major work of myself and other editors has been just trying to salvage articles he "contributes" to. He is a menace to the Wikipedia project, which he uses solely as a platform to promote his lunatic fringe ideas (this is a man who held a one-man demonstration in front of a WalMart in support of union busting and low wages on theoretical grounds). I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be permanently banned. Thanks... --Tothebarricades 17:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Have you considered an RFC? I'm not going to ban him unless he misbehaves again; and as a fairly new admin I'm being cautious. If you think a longer ban is currently justified, you could try User:Hadal who banned him for a month. Except he seems to be away this year. Hmmm. William M. Connolley 18:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC).
We've already been through an RFC which did nothing. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hogeye. --Tothebarricades 20:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, so you have. But I'm afraid the rest of my answer stands. At the moment, anarchism seems to be vigorously contested and H's edits aren't even on the first history page... William M. Connolley 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Macedonia

HI!My nave is Vlatko and I'm from Macedonia(Macedonian people)nit the ethnic group-we are a nationality and have nothing in common with the bulgarians,if so we would behave otherwise> so I would like to ask you if you could remove all the bulgarian crap from the macedonian articles cose they have nothing at all with MACEDONIA even if she is greek.and please block these user FunkyFly Answer me on User:Vlatkoto

Hello, and welcome to wikipedia. But please: calm down. Learn a bit more about wiki (e.g. ~~~~ to sign your messages). Fill in your userpage (you are User:Vlatkoto, not Vlatkoto). Learn to use the talk pages, especially on controversial articles. Be aware of WP:NPOV. William M. Connolley 22:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Coriolis Force

Hello - I see, happily, you have been working on that page. I never understood why somebody (in the last 2 weeks) replaced an informative legend on the hurricane photo with a less informative one that duplicates the text also on the page. Perhaps you would care to restore it - I'm not very handy with captions (or legends or whatever.) By the way, you have a misspelling on your user page, where you write "If your messages are rude, wandering or repetetive " but the word is "repetitive" . Carrionluggage 01:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, you're right: corrected. Re CoF: I'm not happy with that caption (I'm not sure CoF has a lot to do with the force balance inside hurricanes). Will look. William M. Connolley 22:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User Smithsmith

Hi, User:Smithsmith has been posting on global warming talk. He recently posted an uncalled for personal attack against you on Talk:Medieval Warm Period added onto some old JG attacks from last May. I deleted the attack and archived the old pre arbcom talk on that page. I also notified Smithsmith on his talk and advised him to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Just giving you a heads up. Cheers, Vsmith 03:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I'll have a look... Is this an old friend returned, do you think? William M. Connolley 10:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

If you took personal offense to it, then I am truly sorry. I will be more tactful in the future. --Smithsmith 00:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)--Smithsmith 00:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll be judged on your future words... you're clearly new. Welcome to wiki, lets hope you contribute well. William M. Connolley 10:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks from Lulu

Storm clouds ... and silver linings Thank you for your support on my RfA.
Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t @)

[edit] My "3RR"

Concering my 3RR to the Britches (monkey) article, I only, truly reverted the article once. The other times it was me readding the text by hand rather than reverting. I do this because

1) I try to avoid 3RR. and..

2) When I revert vandalism I revert the page once, but if it's persistant, I readd by hand and notify the vandal and proper authority (meaning admins).

Thanks for your time. Cheers! SWD316 talk to me 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Since William is in the pub (or so he claims): It does not matter how you revert the article, just that you effectively restored it to an older version. Doing it by hand or editing and saving a previous version are considered equivalent. --Stephan Schulz 21:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm back now (though I've had 3 pints...) but Stephan is correct: no-one cares exactly how you manipulate the text: its what you save that matters. I urge you to read WP:3RR if you're going to get involved in reverts again. William M. Connolley 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC).
3 pints? Would you be banned if you did 4? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects and Aetherometry

Greetings:

I felt you would be interested in knowing that redirects (such as, for example, Experimental Aetherometry, Aetherometric Technologies, and Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity) which point to non-existent pages (such as, for example, Aetherometry) can be speedily deleted under the 1st criterion for Redirects at WP:CSD.

All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 00:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh thanks. I didn't know that! William M. Connolley 09:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Don't edt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

<nonsense removed by WMC> J. D. Redding

Reddi, please stop pushing your pseudoscience. Its detrimental to wikis reputation. Please don't removed the perp templates; please don't pretend they belong on the talk space: I created the thing, I know where it belongs. William M. Connolley 12:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Glacial recession

Thank you for your assistance with Glacial recession. Your perspective has been most helpful. We were wondering if you might have an opinion on moving Glacial recession to Glacial retreat? Please see Talk:Glacial recession for the discussion. May I extend my gratitude to you for your work on Global warming, a POV-pusher magnet. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... will go look! & thanks re GW William M. Connolley 19:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Big Spring, Texas 3RR/NPOV stuff

Thanks for taking action on this article. Regarding your comments about the user presumably operating from multiple IPs...I know that the 3RR rule does not apply to vandalism reverts, but what about to blatant POV reverts? I've already reverted the article three times today, but the current revision is the political-POV version. What's the proper way to handle this without running afoul of policy? The POV seems so obvious that an RfC would almost seem like a waste of time, but then again, I don't want to circumvent established policies or guidelines. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Under all circumstances, remain within 3RR! And discuss with others, as you've just done. I'm just off blocking someone else; when I'm finished there I'll check BST again, and revert it if needed. William M. Connolley 19:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Direction of rotation of cyclones

Hi, The cyclone article says cyclones rotate 'almost invariantly anticlockwise' in the northern hemisphere, but with rare exceptions. But Coriolis effect now says they always do, without any exception. I don't know what the truth is, but the two articles should be consistent. Thanks, Aaron McDaid 19:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Cyclone means "earth-turning" (doesn't it?) and as far as I know they always go the same way round, otherwise they aren't cyclones... they are anticyclones. William M. Connolley 19:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC).
Ah yes, of course. Good edits. Aaron McDaid 20:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. God edits was OK, though... maybe when I've finished reading (and understanding) Gill :-)) William M. Connolley 20:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Your allegations at Talk:Barry Chamish

Your allegations at talk:Barry Chamish#Request_for_discussion and at my talk page [5] violate our policies and have deeply hurt me, as a longtime user who battles POV and vandalism at this site day and night. I am sorry that you found it necessary to make such unfounded allegations and that you have questioned my good intentions time and again. gidonb 13:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, stop breaking 3RR, and you'll be all right. Read up about dispute resolution. William M. Connolley 14:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

<discussion trimmed; see Gb's for more... William M. Connolley 15:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)>

[edit] Block wars!

Yes, you're right, shorter block takes effect, so lengthening requires unblocking and reblocking (I didn't notice yours at the time, I wasn't trying to do so deliberately). Anyone in favour of adding them together? :) I rather like your shockingly polemical pro-stoat, anti-US-spelling userboxes, btw. Felt the knock of the de-UB lobby yet? Alai 20:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure policy is visibly moving, but longer than 24 for the "repeat customers" seems to be accepted in practice, and is indeed the sort of thing that when it reaches arbcom is greeted by cries of "Accept to draw and quarter, but why didn't the admins already hang him?" I'll poke around the current wording and see how weaselly (hee-hee) it is. Alai 20:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your block

William, Here is a string saved by Paul Barlow. remove POV nationalist assertions about Sanskrit being "the most advanced language in the world" etc. He knows I am a hindu so please do not ask "where did he say hindu nationalist". Being called a nationalist is same as being called Aryan supremacist in the west. Why is it OK for him to call me a nationalist and wrong for me to call him an aryan supremacist? Also read this article if you want to get a different perspective from a German dude: http://www.iskcon.com/icj/6_1/6_1klostermaier.html Shivraj Singh 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Without looking at the context, describing S as the most adv lang is definitely POV, and quite likely Nationalist POV. Being called a nationalist is same as being called Aryan supremacist in the west. - dubious. This [6] is more offensive than PBs comment above. You are being rather free with your "quotations" - you asserted that Paul Barlow has been claiming I am a hindu nationalist - but if the text above is your support, he hasn't. And finally: your comment was offensive, don't repeat it, but it wouldn't by itself have earned a warning from me: it was only coupled with your 4RR. William M. Connolley 19:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] A round of applause for William

I had a chuckle at your comment, very droll. Leithp 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

 :-) I was surprised to be the first! William M. Connolley 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Requests for adminship/Ec5618

You recently voted a resounding no in my Requests for adminship. I have tried to better explain my views, and would like to request that you read the page again. When I stated that "I'd like to be able to edit protected pages", I didn't mean that I would do so without abiding by the protected pages policy. I feel very strongly, and uncompromisingly, about striving for consensus.

I would like to ask you to reconsider your vote. I would hate for a simple misunderstanding to skew the votes.

If you still have questions, ask them, please. Thank you. -- Ec5618 23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've replied there. Its still no. Sorry; I've explained why there. Feel free to come back here and discuss, if you like. I too dislike people who whitewash their past; but its their priviledge to do so, effectively. As an admin who blocks for 3RR's, I always check an apparently clear talk page for previous history, anyway. William M. Connolley 23:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC).
I'd like to offer some context for my edits to Bensaccount's Talk page.
I have had a lot of prior dealings with this editor, and little of it good. While he initially made decent edits, he soon became obsessed with adding a single line, and did so a total of 19 times, without support. I posted a list, in response to the editor's suggestion that I was slandering him[7]. Quickly, the Talk page was blanked. My edits were called Ec's attack session.
Since he hadn't bothered to archive the discussion, and I feared this might come up again, I insisted he leave some mark of the discussion. Common decence, in my book. I didn't want to have to go through this again, or worse, not notice and be confronted by an Administrator with a vengeance. I added a modest set of links[8], which were promptly removed.
This editor has a history of lying about his past. I didn't want to make it easy on him. In my view, any reference to unacceptable behaviour in his history would make it more difficult for him to hide his past.
If this threatens my Adminship, I apologise. From my point of view, I posted on a Talk page. I never lied, I never tried to offend. I merely defended myself. -- Ec5618 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Ec's a good guy. Most of us can be baited by trolling eventually (I know I can). Guettarda 00:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is difficult; on my own I'd oppose, but I'm uncomfortable being on the "other side" to G and Dunc, both of whom are sensible. So I'd better ponder it. G: a question to you: do you think repeatedly re-adding stuff to someone else's talk page is OK? I would say No, but I admit its a grey area. William M. Connolley 09:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC).

Hi William. No, it isn't exemplary behaviour. But I have seen it in otherwise good editors, and I have done it myself (not my finest moment, but not my worst). It shows that you are trollable. Not everyone has your zen-like composure. In my opinion, it mostly shows that you can be trolled. When you are trying to issue a warning, and the person removes it and calls it "trolling" or "personal attacks removed" or something like that, it can get you really upset in a way that no content dispute can. Of course, documenting someone's wrong-doings on their user page is a bad idea, but having done so it's understandable to get upset when the person deletes or archives it all with a comment about ending Ec's attack session.
One more thing about user pages. I partially subscribe to the idea that we do not own our user talk pages (although you wouldn't guess that from the comment at the top of mine). Talk pages exist to talk to you, but also to let others see what is being said to you. It's wrong to remove valid warnings or to repeatedly blank your talk page. You control your talk page, but you don't own it. One last thought - some of the people on the ID/creation pages make the make JG look positively pleasant. Guettarda 14:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, in recognition of the force of your arguments, I've switched to neutral while I consider (but will likely stay there). But I'd guess he is doomed this time: with a respected nominator (like you) and a better written statement he'll do better next time. William M. Connolley 15:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC).
I fear you may be right. Please excuse any bitterness on my part, but the oft repeated addage that Adminship is no big deal seems oddly hollow, as it seems that editors who know me are quick to support me, whereas those that do not are quick to condemn me for what I still perceive to be mostly misunderstandings and isolated incidents. I thank you for taking the time to review my case earnestly. It's much appreciated.
In light of your comments, I have tried to find a policy regarding user Talk pages, and it seems you are right; according to Wikipedia:Talk pages, while blanking one's Talk page is indeed uncivil, reverting is not proper either. It suggests I should have moved on to dispute resolution, though, quite frankly, that is farther than I should ever want to go for such a minor incident. Thank you for your time. -- Ec5618 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The only discussion I know about it takes place here. Poke around the page a bit, there's a lot of discussion about altering talk pages. Guettarda 16:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

William,

Thank you for protecting the page Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. EuroSong 18:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You and admin

It helps, I think, that the arbcom completely fucked up your case the first time. :) Phil Sandifer 23:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 :-)) William M. Connolley 23:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/l/User_talk%7EWilliam_M._Connolley_Old_Talk_11_c39b.html"