User talk:William M. Connolley/Old talk 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] footnotes

Say, sorry to entreat you so blatantly, but can you support and assist me in the measure to convert the global warming page to use footnotes? Of course, the kinks could be worked out and specific issues could be discussed, but I think footnotes would be cleaner in the long run, especially since the page cites Nature in the middle of the text, as well as several pdf's, and it looks a tad ugly in terms of jarring the prose. Footnotes would resolve that somewhat. Do give me your opinion. Thanks! Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely not going to *help* since I don't like them - at least for URL links. I was avoiding weighing in on t:GW too quickly - I'd rather let others give some opinion first William M. Connolley 19:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] TSE/BL

Hi there. I'm here because Wikipedia isn't an internet forum. My father is an academic (economics) and he never had high opinion of other academics who sit on policy committee or write popular book. He considered them as sellout. I checked your profile and it appear that you are mathematician dealing with climate modelling. Is this same in meteorology? The ones who concentrate on producing research papers are the one you don't hear in "public debate" over global warming?

Um, not quite sure about the thrust of your question. If you mean, what do those climate researchers who don't speak out publicly think, this answer in general is they agree with the IPCC consensus, where it touches their work. I cannot speak for economics, but in climate the scientists involved with IPCC are of the highest quality. You might want to check out my blog if you want my opinions. William M. Connolley 13:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Action on Climate Change

William, could you add this to your watchlist, and be on the look out for James's extreme weather graph. I've already removed it twice today. Dragons flight 17:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, he seems to be having a phase of pushing that again. Still its out now. Thats not a great article, though... William M. Connolley 18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little Ice Age

Hi William. Have you ever seen reference to the Little Ice Age beginning something like 4k years ago? I haven't, but I'm not up on the topic. Please see Prometheus (tree) for background as to why I ask the question. Thanks. Jeeb 18:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. jump to the 7th paragraph if you don't want to read the whole thing...Jeeb 18:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
OK: will answer there William M. Connolley 19:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James S.

With reference to your edit, [1] James S. seems to accept the attribution. I left your edit stand; the record is accurate. [2] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFAr evidence

In his defense, James was correct in calling Vsmith an SUV-driver, even if all his other accusations were wrong ;) Guettarda 18:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I'd missed that exchange... William M. Connolley 19:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Bradley

Hi I agree with you, Ray Bradley should never have been speedied for the sheer fact that he is a professor and therefore has a chance to be notable. Great article though, not my brand of science, but still interesting (I am a medical bio student). Mike (T C) 01:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

THanks for that! I'll call you in evidence should it ever go to VFD :-) William M. Connolley 09:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quango

The page currently titled Quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation should be under Quango or Qango, not under its present title which is one of a number of ex post rationalisations of the acronym. Historically QUANGO for Quasi-NGO came first and that should be the heading, although other uses such as that described here were more important in the end.

I assume this kind of change requires some sort of admin process beyond the powers of a mere user JQ 07:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, its a perhaps under-appreciated fact that anyone can move a page - tab at the top. In this case, though, I suggest you talk about it on the talk page for a bit first, cos this might stir up some passions (not mine!). Of course, it is easy to create QUANGO and Quango as #REDIRECT to [[Quasi...]] if you like. William M. Connolley 09:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's a problem there. I put a note on the talk page a couple of weeks ago, and got no reply. Also, the article has been tagged for cleanup since Aug 2005. There are redirects in place, but I think that the page needs a change. Can you explain in more detail how this is done?
Oh, in that case, just do it: press the "move" tab at the top; its all obvious from there William M. Connolley 13:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting! But unfortunately I got "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move." I suspect the problem is that the redirect page that already exists has been subject to some very minor editing. Anyway, off to "Requested moves".
OK, or tell me the exact from/to here and I'll do it William M. Connolley 09:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! From Quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation to Quango JQ 12:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Done William M. Connolley 19:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A totally separate issue

Is there someone at BAS I could talk to about the process of getting your people down to Antarctica and back again. Work related. Be grateful if you could point me in an appropriate direction, email works if required.ALR 21:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Errrm... what sort of thing do you want to know? How we do it? Whether you can too? Give me a clue :-) William M. Connolley 21:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I know how you do it, there was a mild issue reported about the last set that went down, and possibly the set that are about to come back up. I just need to talk to someone about their requirements in transit, since I'll need to look into the issue before the autumn batch. Sorry, appreciate that's a little vague. tbh I'm getting no help from my side at the moment and need to come to your people directly.ALR 21:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, bit hard to know. You can try the contact form, and it will get to the right person, but may not be suitbale if the issue is sensitive. You can mail me and I can pass it on; ditto. Otherwise, remind me on monday and I'll inquire William M. Connolley 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Noted; thanks William M. Connolley 19:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bill; arguments are underway, please come and join the fray at your earliest convenience. It's vintage James and shouldn't be missed. --DV8 2XL 04:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] canidate?

Connolley, were you a Green Party canidate? J. D. Redding

Reddi - I've made it fairly clear that I dislike your recent edits to the cl ch articles. Unless you're prepared to promise to be good, I'm not going to give out info to you that isn't already freely available William M. Connolley 09:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes (it turned up in a freely available site; and will be included unless you deny it) .... and your reckless editing POVing your 'co-blogger' bio is not "good". J. D. Redding 11:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to true info going in. I do object to you stalking me, and if you continue you're bound to get into trouble. I do also object to you reformatting the refs; since we had an arbcomm case over this, I suggest you look up the result before wasting any more of your time William M. Connolley 11:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
And you only know the "true" info? (... truth is amorphous) ... but factual info should be included (mabey you sghould understand the notion of a "fact") ... Anyhoo ... I'm not stalking ... I am reviewing edits ... are you paranoid? guilty conscious?
the arbcomm case supports comprehensive reference information ... listing the 'article title' and other info helps when the link becomes defunct .. which happens quite often over time ....
Please think before you recklessly remove infomation. J. D. Redding 12:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Logo

Template:Logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Esprit15d 19:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this? It doesn't sound like one of my interests... William M. Connolley 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Request for arbitration

Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between DarrenRay, 2006BC and others. You are being named as an involved party. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a bit odd; but I await developments William M. Connolley 12:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I added you as it was unclear what the selection criteria was and I'd rather give people an opportunity to abstain than be miffed at being left out. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What do you mean by 'distinctly dodgy Bios theory'?

Bios theory has been published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, with good impact factors (2, 0.7, etc.). No objection to this theory has been published so far. It may not be broadly acknowledged, but it is related to Chaos theory, and I will put a link there in the 'See also' section.... [wurble trimmed: WMC] Lakinekaki 21:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The "see also" links should probably point to major related areas or concepts, in my view--it should be a list of some of the basic areas you *need* to know to understand the field. Most of them in the article meet that standard (with the exception of the Chaos Data Analyzer--don't know anything about that.) Even if bios theory is perfectly legitimate and related to chaos, there are probably 100 topics that are more central to chaos theory. (You can certainly be an expert in chaos theory without having heard of bios!) Consider the link to "anosov diffeomorphism": even that is probably marginal, but that's a huge field of study that encompasses some of the major inspirational examples of the field. --Experiment123 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Bios theory *isn't* perfectly legit - "distinctly dodgy" is being kind to it - see its talk page. William M. Connolley 23:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I wrote half of the article on Anosov diffeomorphism. Bios theory is ... yeah, "dodgy" is a good word for it. linas 04:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help

We need an expert biologist's eye over at History of Earth. If you have time to take a look, we'd be very grateful. Puffball 21:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Monobook

I noticed that you do a lot of 3RR and admin work. Want to copy my monobook? It has everything you have and much more :).Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 17:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Could well be... how would I go about doing that? William M. Connolley 18:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
hehe...select all...cut and paste from here.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 18:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It is designed for 1028x768 (or whatever) resolution. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 18:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you want me to add the stuff in?Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 18:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds dangerous... let me have a poke at it... but hold on, I'm just busy blocking someone :-) William M. Connolley 18:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Decided against (the block). OK, so I'm trying the .js. Hmm... interesting. I wonder if I'll like it... William M. Connolley 19:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You had popups twice so I delete part of the script. One version is the script itself with admin features...the other references the script from Lupin (though admin = true thing is not one). Lupin's may be updated, so maybe we can switch to the referenced one...I think some admins use the reference on with the admin = true thing on (the variable will appear twice but the last one seems to take precedence...to lazy to change now, since it won't make a difference though.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 19:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have the block list linked up, then change the function "rrblockn()" by copying (from edit mode) over it with this:

function rrblockn() {

 username_a = document.URL.match(/:.*:(.*)/);
 username=username_a[1];
 var article = prompt("Enter history page URL")
 var time = prompt("Enter the duration of the block (in hours)")
 var f = document.editform, t = f.wpTextbox1;
 if (t.value.length > 0)
   t.value += '\n';
 t.value += "{{subst:" + "3rr3" + "}} I've blocked" + username + " you for " + time + " hours. Here are the reverts in question[" + article + "]. ~" + "~" + "~" + "~";
 f.wpSummary.value = "User notice:" + " temporary 3RR block";

}

That should do it :).Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 23:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/l/User_talk%7EWilliam_M._Connolley_Old_talk_14_b86f.html"