Misplaced Pages

Talk:William Connolley: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:47, 16 November 2007 editSagredo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,954 edits →Added some criticism: It ain't gonna stick.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:46, 15 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,958,076 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages with redundant living parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=start|importance=|s&a-work-group=yes|listas=Connolley, William}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|cc}}

{{Notable Wikipedian|William M. Connolley|Connolley, William}} {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Connolley, William|1=
{{WikiProject Biography |s&a-work-group=yes }}
{{oldafdmulti
{{WikiProject Climate change |importance=low}}
| date = February 14, 2005
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom |importance=}}
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages |importance=Low }}
}}
{{Notable Wikipedian|William M. Connolley}}
{{Old AfD multi| date = February 14, 2005
| result = '''keep''' | result = '''keep'''
| page / votepage = William Connolley | page / votepage = William Connolley
Line 15: Line 20:
| result4 = '''keep''' | result4 = '''keep'''
| page4 = William Connolley (4th nomination) | page4 = William Connolley (4th nomination)
| small = | date5 = April 1, 2008
| result5 = '''speedy keep''' (joke nomination)
| page5 = William Connolley (5th nomination)
| collapse = yes | collapse = yes
| numbered = yes | numbered = yes
| type = | type =
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchive}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:William Connolley/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}


== External links modified ==
{| class="infobox" width="150"
|- align="center"
| ]
''']'''
----
|- align="center
| ] ]<!--] ] ] ]-->
|}

== This person isn't famous or interesting ==

So why does he have a wikipedia page? Is it a private joke? Misplaced Pages shouldn't be about private jokes because people read it and take it seriously
<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:This is not a new discussion. Most people disagree with you. See the archive (link on this page).--] 15:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect most people do not disagree, but casual visitors should note that William Connolley also happens to be a Misplaced Pages Administrator. Note also the contrast in length and apparent important between this page which is an article about a "Senior Scientific Officer" (actually quite a lowly post) at the ] and the non-article about Professor Chris Rapley, head of the BAS, which is a mere paragraph on the main BAS page. Professor Rapley has for example recently featured in a Radio 4 debate on global warming with ]. I could find no mention of this important figure, William Connolley, in the said discussions between leading scientific figures on climate change. ] 19:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:Mind reading aside, why don't you create a page on Professor Rapley if you think this is important? Why is an existing deficit in one part of Wikipdia a reason to create one somewhere else? --] 19:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be the case that the Rapley mention is of reasonable length and appropriate, and if that's the case, then this page is disproportionate and over-extensive. I would suggest it be reduced to a few sentences. ] 19:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:Well, at least that is a valid hypothesis. However, a short visit to ] and a look at Rapley's Bio tells us that he does qualify as notable without any doubt (just as recipient of multiple honorary professor positions and being awarded a CBE). So he should have a full article. --] 20:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is fair comment Stephan, I will look at adding one for him and also making a better page for BAS, which deserves one - quite surprised William Connolley hasn't done this though, seeing as he actually works there. Perhaps too busy editing his own? :-) ] 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

::FYI, I just deleted Rapley's bio blurb as a copyvio. ] 20:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree that ] is a vanity page. If you disagree - shoot me. --] 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From all appearances, the people who show up whining about this article are trying to get some sort of passive-aggressive retribution on the user. He passes notability as determined by 3 AfD's and ]. We don't care if you dislike him, get a life and make some productive edits elsewhere. --] <small>]</small> 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::I love the way that the whole ] thing goes out the window on this talk page! Hey - tjstrf - why don't you get a life? Go make some useful edits elsewhere? I don't dislike the subject of this article - who is a nobody - I just don't think it is right that he is exempt from ]. --] 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

: Well, I think it is arguable whether Will passes ] or not but the observation that many people do seem to come here in retaliation seems to be accurate. ] 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)`

I spend a lot of time doing constructive edits. It's simplistic to allege that the reason for disputing this page is to do with reliation and to be honest, a smear on all those many editors who have challenged it. The reason behind the challenges is simple; Connolley is not notable enough outside Misplaced Pages to merit this page. He is notable '''within Misplaced Pages''' and is also a pal (apparently) of J Wales and that's the reason for the page surviving. This is to do with Misplaced Pages being objective or not. The way the cabal rally over this page leads one to suspect not in some cases. ] 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

: Comment I don't think anyone meant to imply that every person who makes comments about deleting this is doing to it retaliate, just that many are. If you think it should be deleted then AfD it. ] 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::There isn't any point, doing so would just invite abuse from the group of fellow admins who defend the article. --] 10:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:::* He is clearly more notable than many of the crackpots that show up on AFD. But it is by no means obvious that he is more notable than some run-of-the-mill Assistant Professor who may get deleted under ]. (Is he really more than a glorified post-doc with blogs?) What I find disquieting is that so many of the keep votes did not concern themselves with independent evidence of notability. Instead, many just repeated "he is notable", "bad faith nom", and so on. That really makes it look as if a WP insider is getting special favors. ] 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: To both Leibniz and Sandy's comment, I would think and hope that an AfD made by an essentially uninvolved user in good standing in the project would be taken more seriously than the previous AfDs. ] 13:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

::::: Are you suggesting myself & L are indeed "uninvolved users in good standing" or that we aren't? Question not meant to be aggressive by the way I am just asking for clarification! I have had no beef with Connolley before, I have no view on him as an admin - though I suspect he is excellent in role, he wouldn't command such loyalty if he wasn't. --] 14:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::: I would think that both you and Leibniz would be in that category (unless there is some interaction between you and Will that I missed). ] 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Naw ... in my opinion he isn't <I>even</I> a good admin. He was snotty and rude in the only interaction I had with him. <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This article survived ''three'' AfD votes so I don't see any point in arguing anymore about whether the subject is notable or not. The Misplaced Pages articles on ] and related subjects are probably among the most viewed articles on the subject on the English internet (judging by my Google search tests) and he is a major factor in that. He's not the first person to gain at least some notability due to his efforts on Misplaced Pages. The article doesn't discuss that facet of his notability to much of an extent, I assume because not many secondary sources discuss it. It might should be discussed more in the article if the sources support it. ] 07:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


With all due respect to everyone up above, and to Dr Connolley himself, may I suggest this debate ''moves on''? I feel the problem with the article (as someone else said) is not its existence but that it is much too long compared to the (apparent), relative importance of its subject? I invite you to compare the length of this article to the length of these other Misplaced Pages articles on a few random climate science/politics "figures" that I plucked off the top of my head:

* Dr James Hansen: approx 1800 words.
* Dr James Lovelock: approx 980 words
* '''Dr William Connolley: approx 900 words.'''
* Sir John Houghton: approx 800 words.
* Dr Robert Watson: approx 500 words
* Sir Crispin Tickell: approx 400 words
* Dr Stefan Rahmstorf: approx 350 words
* Dr Michael Oppenheimer: approx 250 words

and, for comparison:
* Sir Martin Rees (Astronomer Royal): approx 575 words

I calculated these very, very hastily so don't hold me to them. I'm making a broad-brush point here :)

It is a standard principle of most encyclopedias that the length of an article correlates with the relative importance of its subject. (You might say Misplaced Pages doesn't have to observe the conventions of a paper book, but even online it would be absurd to devote 500 pages to Mickey Mouse and only five pages to Winston Churchill.) IMHO, this article might be less contentious if it were a little shorter and more humble. For example, does it need to include so many publications? The article on Dr James Hansen doesn't include his publications: it links to his homepage, where he lists his own publications. Perhaps the William Connolley page should follow that example?

Also, some of the details may or may not be minutae (as someone up above said), but their relevance needs to be made clear. Some may say details like being a parish councillor distract from the more important aspects of Dr Connolley's work. Perhaps the importance of the detail is just not being spelled out? A detail like this could mean "He really wanted to be Prime Minister, but all he's managed to do is become a parish councillor". Or it could mean: "He has absolutely no interest in being Prime Minister, because he believes politics is only truly effective at the most local, community level". If the former is true, the detail is not worth including; if the latter is true, the detail is an important part of the bigger picture. ] 13:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:No, ]. We should as a general rule include as much referenced data as we can whatever the subject is so long as it does not make the articles unreadable. We do not, never have, and never shall begin to remove information simply to meet some subjective standard of what is more "deserving" of disk space. --] <small>]</small> 13:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


William Connolley is not notable in his field. His publications were insignificant. He is not regarded as anyone special within his field of study or research. A publication does not make someone notable. If that weren't true, there'd be literally thousands of nonsensical articles on unimportant and minor scientists flooding Misplaced Pages. Three failed AFDs do not mean much when there's already a ] and their reasons given are inane. ~ ] 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

: Again, if you think so, then AfD it. ] 03:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
::]]. --] 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

== Possible ] problem ==

I've no great objection to the existence of this article, but looking back at the edit history it seems substantial parts of it were written by Dr Connolley himself. I thought this wasn't allowed? (Incidentally I also reckon the references to his being a parish councillor of a tiny village etc. give an impression of this being a vanity page, regardless of who added them.) ] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

:The rule you are looking for is ]. It is a guideline and allows for reasonable exceptions. I've checked the last year or so of edits, and have not found anything substantial inserted by William (he fixed a few links, spelling, and so on). Very early in the articles history he added a couple of publications. The parish councillor (what is that, anyways?) was added by ], probably because he found it noteworthy. --] 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

== Criticisms? This person has no criticism? ==

Clearly this person is both notable and above criticism (not). The guy rules over his climate change pages like a Green Party overlord and instantly reverts anything he deems unholy. Plus this smells like a vanity page to me.--] 05:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:If you find anything that fullfills the requirements of ], feel free to add it. Misplaced Pages arguments aren't. For the rest, see old talk and three AdDs that found otherwise.--] 07:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:: When ] the cat has a criticisms section and this guy doesn't, something is out of wack. But I don't want to delete, having his own page here (obviously written by his kooky Green party pals) just shows how bad of an "encyclopedia" Misplaced Pages really is. Maybe I'll give my Grandma a page when I get some time later. Cheers.--] 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I hate to be the one to break it to you, but sooner or later, somebody else will. I'll try to be gentle. Garfield is '''not a living person'''. In related news, neither is ]. Both, however, are a bit more widely known than William, and may have attracted some criticism verifiable from reliable sources. If I wanted to totally offset your world view, I would also point out that by deleting something, you will not add a criticism section. --] 07:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Well actually, to follow on what you said, if someone was really notable enough to deserve such a long article on Misplaced Pages, you would expect that he would have been the subject of some criticism somewhere no? (perhaps not as much as Garfield or Santa, but still) --] 13:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::] paper. The length of an article has nothing to do with notability of the subject. Either a subject is notable enough for an article, or not. Also, the article is a mere two pages, half of that references and publications. But again, feel free to add relevant and verifiable criticism. --] 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

:He's been the subject of plenty of criticism, and rightfully so. The fact that his vanity-page yet lives, or that such criticism is not at least reflected in said page, speaks volumes about the Good Ol' Boy culture of Misplaced Pages. I grow more disgusted with this web site each day. Note that this opinion would rapidly change if I were allowed to have my own article, too. So, how 'bout it? Can I? Pretty please? --] 21:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::Misplaced Pages articles are not generally <s>cond</s>considered a ], especially not if they are two years out of date. And given that you have been participating , your digust cannot be that big. Or have you possibly just forgotten to log in? If you have a couple of scientific publications and are mentioned in major print publications, you can of course have your own article. Just find a worthy opponent like ] who thinks you are notable. Or ] ], or be ] ]. We are not very picky. --] 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:::"Misplaced Pages articles are not generally condiered a ] . . ." Yeah, that to William. ~ ] 22:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::::There's a huge difference between the two Uber...but then, you know that already. ] 23:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Difference between what? They're the same thing. ~ ] 16:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:::So are my feelings only valid from the point when I begin making edits, or is it possible that I've felt disillusioned with what I've seen as a clear bias on Misplaced Pages for some time now? As for logging in, I had an account in the early days of Misplaced Pages (2002 I believe), but forgot the password long ago, and almost never logged in. Having witnessed the problems related to user-page vandals, I probably wouldn't bother anyway -- especially considering that registering brings me no benefits. An IP address should be enough for others to identify me, but if you like I can start signing with a pseudonym. Besides, you clearly place no value on the opinions of registered users, since you don't count the criticisms I sourced as worthy. Incidentally, if I did happen to find a peer critique of Mr. Connolley that was two years old, would you accept it? --] 00:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

::::If you like that, me and Stephan both broke the 3RR rule, however I was banned for 24 hours and Stephan was warned. Misplaced Pages is clearly unbiased, right? Haha! --] 04:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::With that statement you just demonstrate that you don't understand either ] or ]. Have a nice day.... --] 08:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::I fully understand them and I understand that ] didn't apply here. The fact is that the subject of this article edited his own biography and favorable and lasting ways. This was a start for criticism of this person.--] 11:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::It goes more to show Atlant doesn't understand ], and he fully demonstrated that he didn't with his further comments. Regardless, neither Dr. Schulz or Rotten violated 3RR, but Rotten was indeed blocked for 24 hours for "violating 3RR." ~ ] 18:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I have no idea what a "peer critique" could comprise, but if it is published by a ] and properly attributable taking into account ], certainly. An IP adress only identifies you if it's static. And of course anonymity has no influence on the ''validity'' of your arguments. It does, however, influence whether people take the argument serious. --] 00:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Which "people"? You've already made it clear that ''you'' do not take the arguments of registered users seriously. --] 01:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Not at all. For registered users, I can look at their contributions and arguments over time, and form an opinion. Some of them I take serious, some I dismiss as irrelevant, and some are borderline cases. The world (and Misplaced Pages) is to big to reason purely from first principles. I do take someones history into account before I decide how much time I spend with his or her arguments. But a two year old RfC on an open wiki and since superceded by two ArbCom cases is about as useful as ].--] 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::All this is irrelevant to the article. Simple question - are you aware of any reliable sources of criticism? If so - please provide them. If not, then there really isn't anything to discuss here. ] 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added some relevent criticism.--] 12:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:Um. You have no source for the criticism, neither reliable nor unreliable. All you have is evidence for the act. And that act is in full agreement with ] (quote: "''However, in clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on.''". Anyways, ] requires multiple independent reliable sources, and you have not one applicable source. Reverted again under the ]. If you insist, I will take this to AN/I. --] 13:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::Look, William Connelly made changes to this biography, some of which cast him in a better light and some of which still stand to this day. It should be noted that this biography has been edited by the subject, if Misplaced Pages is to retain any credibility as an independent encyclopedia, it should be noted when users are editing their own biography. --] 13:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::For that purpose, there exists ]. And I don't see how the edit you link to "cast him in a better light" - it mostly fixes a number of errors. Anyways, all this is irrelevant. ] applies and is intentionally one of the most strictly enforced policies on Misplaced Pages.--] 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::Stephen, are you and William lovers?] 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Who is Stephen? --] 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

==Nomination for Deletion==
I have nominated this page for deletion as there is no evidence whatsoever of notabilty. (If everyone with similar notability had a page Misplaced Pages would look like a phone book, which is not its purpose). Perhaps the few ardent members of his fan club could start a MySpace page for him.] 18:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

:Removed tag from page. Subject is notable as a climatologist and also as a Wikipedian. The article has survived afd before. ] 19:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

::No, he's not. See criteria. Blogging doesn't count. And notable in Wiki for posting in Wiki??? I guess if Paris Hilton can be famous for being famous, so can WMC. Thanks for devaluing the work of every Wiki editor. (This is not intended to be ])] 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

== Subliminal Vandalism ==

I think it evident that someone is trying to disparage William Connolley's fine reputation. As evidence I submit the photo used in the article. Upon full resolution, it is evident that the unnatural, almost twisted, profile was selected for one reason only: '''To highlight Mr. Connolley's failure to properly keep his nose hairs in check.''' This is information of the most personal nature, and if someone had ''written'' it about him in the article, it would have been excised '''immediately''' in the proper quest to combat vandalism. But in a picture like this, the vandal was able to slide it in, in such a way as to only affect the viewer/reader subliminally. I urge the immediate removal of this picture in the name of ].

== Why is the Principal Investigator of the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System not given a similar Vanity Page as his junior William Connolley? ==

He is William Connolley's boss's, boss's boss after all. I followed the link provided to http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/BAS_Science/programmes2005-2010/ACES/index.html

Where William Connolley's name is not mentioned at all, but it clearly states that the Principal Investigator of the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System (ACES) is Dr John King. I then checked for him on Misplaced Pages and lo and behold he doesn't have a page. If William Connolley who is a highly prolific editor and Admin on Misplaced Pages '''truly believed''' that he is himself notable enough to be on Misplaced Pages, then he surely would have written a page on the much more notable Dr. John King. Since he has not done so over the '''past four years''' while his own page has been on Misplaced Pages, he clearly does not believe that his superior is notable enough for Misplaced Pages. Thus exposing this page for what it really is - a vanity page, pure and simple. ~ ] 15:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:So many errors here that it is hard to put them all together. First, notability does not follow hierarchy. This is particularly true in science. Secondly, Misplaced Pages editors have no duty to write any particular article. This ''should'' be rather obvious, given that we are all volunteers here. If you feel strongly about it, I suggest you write it. And finally, given that the article originally was written by ], why do you address William? --] 15:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


::When did I address William?

::You seem to imply that a clique should be able to put up vanity pages about the other members of the clique, this is simply a neat loophole to circumvent the rules. ~ ] 23:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::Oh, so in your world William and Ed (now on ) are best buds? And do you intend to answer any of the points? --] 00:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
== Info ==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001044946/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonqin/Cambsgreen/PEOPLE/People.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonqin/Cambsgreen/PEOPLE/People.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
I don't watch this page, and I won't be after this, but: I'm no longer a parish councillor (since may 2007) and I haven't posted to sci.env for... oh, ages ] 18:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
== Added some criticism ==


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 08:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I added some much needed criticism.--] 06:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


There is a stray bracket at the very end of the article (after Stoat) but I can't edit it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I've reverted this attack, vandalising Misplaced Pages in pursuit of intra-wiki disputes.] 06:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
:Fixed. ] (]) 10:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


== Undue weight ==
::Clearly this user has compromised his own vanity page by editing it, no? You have to agree with that? --] 07:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


Should his Misplaced Pages (mis)adventures account for half of this biography? The section on his non-Misplaced Pages career (writing) is only about half of that of the section on his Misplaced Pages editing. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 11:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
:::]. --] 07:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
:"(mis)adventures"?? - hmm. Anyway, if you see an imbalance - then grab some solid sources and expand his non-Misplaced Pages career section. Simple solution. ] (]) 12:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
::{{Ping|User:Piotrus}} Apparently, the only rule that applies to this article is ], which is fine with me, being an . You won't find the sources Vsmith suggests because they don't exist; the subject fails ] outside Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


== Criteria for article ==
::::Well clearly this needs to be mentioned on this webpage. I will add it in later.--] 07:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


How many other "Senior Scientific Officer(s) in the Physical Sciences Division in the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System project at the British Antarctic Survey" are profiled? His name does not appear in the BAS article. ] (]) 18:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst (The sound of yet another coat of ] being sprayed on WMC's armor.) ]<sup>]</sup> 08:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:46, 15 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Connolley article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
WikiProject iconClimate change Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
Deletion discussions:
  1. speedy keep (joke nomination), April 1, 2008, see discussion.
  2. keep, May 13, 2007, see discussion.
  3. keep, September 8, 2006, see discussion.
  4. keep, July 30, 2005, see discussion.
  5. keep, February 14, 2005, see discussion.


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Connolley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a stray bracket at the very end of the article (after Stoat) but I can't edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expand your John Thomas (talk • contribs) 03:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight

Should his Misplaced Pages (mis)adventures account for half of this biography? The section on his non-Misplaced Pages career (writing) is only about half of that of the section on his Misplaced Pages editing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"(mis)adventures"?? - hmm. Anyway, if you see an imbalance - then grab some solid sources and expand his non-Misplaced Pages career section. Simple solution. Vsmith (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Apparently, the only rule that applies to this article is WP:IAE, which is fine with me, being an inclusionist. You won't find the sources Vsmith suggests because they don't exist; the subject fails notability outside Misplaced Pages. YoPienso (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for article

How many other "Senior Scientific Officer(s) in the Physical Sciences Division in the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System project at the British Antarctic Survey" are profiled? His name does not appear in the BAS article. 2A00:23C4:5107:3C01:E8D7:E2DD:8585:E8BE (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:William Connolley: Difference between revisions Add topic