This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user 47736712 (talk | contribs) at 06:39, 3 February 2009 (→The <div> tag and Cascading Style Sheets: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:39, 3 February 2009 by Vanished user 47736712 (talk | contribs) (→The <div> tag and Cascading Style Sheets: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with decency and humility, is to honour him; as signs of fear to offend. To speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly, impudently is to dishonour. Leviathan, X. I've decided to start an "article in need of attention of the week" (or day, or month, depending on how many come along). The first one is suitable for septics and greenies alike: Runaway climate change. Don't discuss it here; do it there. As an alternative, pointless rumble of the week is Fred Singer.

This is a Happy Talk Page. No bickering.

Proverb for the year: if you have nothing new to say, don't say it.

If you're here to talk about conflicts of interest, please read (all of!) this.

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email.

I "archive" (i.e. delete old stuff) quite aggressively (it makes up for my untidiness in real life). If you need to pull something back from the history, please do. Once.

Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question.

My actions
Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions

The Holding Pen

Secret trials considered harmful

Well, I've read the evidence: general impression is that this is revenge by DHMO's friends for his RFA failure. Why? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And now I've read the judgement. And it seems to me that arbcomm has run itself off the rails. It would seem that they've got themselves infected by the bad blood from DHMO's RFA. So:

Given the sanctions, which are more humiliating that restrictive, the case was clearly non-urgent.
There is a good deal of interpretation and selective quoting in the evidence. I don't see any eveidence that OM was given any opportunity to respond, and that is bad (looking at OM's page, I think this response from ~~arbcomm~~ is revealing: when asked directly if OM was given the chance to respond, the reply is weaselly).
I'm missing the result of the user RFC that obviously the arbcomm insisted on being gone through first. Could someone point me to it?
Could all these people please get back to the job of deciding the cases validly put before them, most obviously the G33 and SV/etc ones

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever the actual substance of the complaint: I'm deeply concerned about ArbCom (or unspecified parts of it) trawling through a years worth of contributions, selectively quoting parts that support a certain point of view, assemble all this into a large document, and without ~~further~~ input from the user in question or from the community issue an edict from above. And for good measure they (?) declare a priori that an appeal is possible, but will be moot. Well, maybe it's acceptable because, as we all know, the committee is infallible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I admit, my prior opinion was that arbcomm is generally slow but usually got the right answer. In this case, I'm doubtful. BTW, I'm almost sure I had a run-in with OM once. Can anyone remember when/where? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In case you have not yet noticed: This seems to be deeper. . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy @#%$! I was wondering how all of them took leave of their senses at once. R. Baley (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

!?! That looks bad William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this some sort of hallucination?????? WTF??? BTW, you did run into me, because you blocked someone in a manner that I felt unfair. When I found out you are/were one of the "good guys" on global warming, I had mixed feelings. Now, I feel safe that you're watching over the article, especially since Raymond Arritt is gone.OrangeMarlin 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This whole notion of "good guys" and "bad guys" is a seriously poisonous and harmful way of seeing fellow contributors. It encourages the worst excesses and does not lend itself to reaching consensus with the dark side/evil ones/whatever. Orderinchaos 16:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I like to think that the people reverting vandalism might be considered "good", and the vandals "bad". Perhaps thats a bit too old-school, and you prefer a more nuanced approach? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking William's interpretation of good and bad editors. However, I consider NPOV vandals to be vandals too. Yes there is a nuance to all of this, and that's the problem. It's difficult.OrangeMarlin 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So whats going on?

Most discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Orangemarlin and other matters, it seems.

Presumably someone will be along to sort out this car crash at some point. In the meantime I've been trying to see whats going on, and I've found...

As we know, KL has repudiated FT2's postings . But rather suggests that secret proceedings were indeed going on.
tB has "temporarily" blanked the page , which is nice, though not as good as "permanently"
Jimbo has weighed in, saying basically "I haven't got a clue whats going on" . Later updated to the Arbitration Committee itself has done absolutely nothing here , which does rather suggest FT2 acting alone in acting, though doesn't address discussions.
CM is cryptic turns on the interpretation of "formal" in "formal proceeding", a semantic point that is not vacuous
JPG says its miscommunication and begs for patience but confirms the secret case
FN thanks us for our patience as does Mv
Jv appears to endorse FT2's version, adding the OM case to those recently closed and posting the result to ANI . How does Jv know this is the will of arbcomm? And interesting question, which I've just asked him, and which he is studiously ignoring.

Other arbs appear to be far too busy to deal with trivia of this type.

So its hard to know what *has* happened. But clearly its not just FT2 running amok, or the other arbs would say so. My best guess is that secret trials (discussions?) were indeed in progress and that they are too embarrassed to admit it; and that there is some frantic behind-the-scenes talking going on to try to get a story straight.

CM . The statement is bizarre and is going to leave a lot of people (including me) unhappy. It looks like "it was a regrettable miscommunication, please don't ask any more questions" is going to be the line.

William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC) & 20:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What stuns me is how any arbitrator thought that allegations of uncivil behavior (however true) needed to be urgently addressed in a blatantly out-of-process manner while a case of full-bore socking by a repeat offender, resulting in high-profile articles being locked for weeks, was allowed to languish. Hopefully the committee realizes they cannot put the business of Arbitration on hold to focus solely on this drama, and will continue the voting. - Merzbow (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, still baffled by that one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like the official line is it all ended happily ever after , nothing to see, move along here William M. Connolley (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And FT2 is terribly busy

Hmm, so... it all ended happily ever after and everyone forgot about it? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten. Who knows if it will happen again or is happening now. OrangeMarlin 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FT2 is back secret activities. I can't believe it.OrangeMarlin 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

This arbitration case has closed and the full decision can be viewed by clicking the above link. Both Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) & yourself are indefinitely prohibited from taking any administrative action with respect to Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or edit wars in which Giano II is an involved party.

Furthermore, please note that the temporary injunction in the case now ceases to be in effect.

Regards, Daniel (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbcomm at its worst: a feeble wimp-out and a waste of everyones time. But thanks for letting me know William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm here: 2008-10-02 Block log); 23:08:48 . . Moreschi (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (c'mon, for Giano this was very mild, and we can't bully people with blocks into writing more kindly). Apparently is not incivil; and we have an explicit double-standard for G William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The User:Nangparbat case. I think

See-also User talk:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader

January 2009

The vandal has returned Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

New sock ip, new pages: Special:Contributions/86.156.211.8 Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of their vandalizing grounds have had their semi-protection expire and they are not back yet, may be I don't have to file that WP:SSP report that I never got around to finish Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Current

Scibaby

When blocking Scibaby, you really do need to file an RFCU and have a checkuser come in and (1) drain the swamp of any other socks, and (2) and long-term block any IPs he's used. Otherwise, more socks pop up and it becomes harder to retroactively undo all of their edits (because there are more interevening edits). Raul654 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Normally I don't bother. Will try to remember in future. Are you standing for Arbcom this time? Please do William M. Connolley (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to stand for arbcom - I really, really want to wrap up my phd in the next 18 months and that really does cut into my Misplaced Pages time. If I were to run, I'd end up being idle most of the time. Raul654 (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Its a shame. I think they need some help, and some solid competent people with bottom William M. Connolley (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"some solid competent people with bottom"????--BozMo talk 14:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Jack Aubrey sense William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to thank you for your RfA support, which passed with 79.6 percent. I'm not trying to thank all 94 supports, but yours made me laugh in the middle of a stressful week.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley was inducted into The Hall of The Greats

William - famous scientists is one area I have ignored, and one reason we likely have never crossed paths. I dedicated this photo of De Niro for all the work you do on this important area, one I am of no use to, but one where even I know what good work you do. --David Shankbone 02:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you very kindly, and apologies for taking so long to respond. I'll have to live up to it now William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

These dedications are for the totality of edits already made. You wouldn't need to make another contribution, and it would still be just as appropriate. Of course - keep editing; we need you! I wish I had something more suited to your area of work, but I thought De Niro was a good compliment. Who doesn't like De Niro? Happy New Year. --David Shankbone 20:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Abingdon

No probs - you set me on an interesting trail of discovery. Regards Motmit (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for dealing with the Arthur Kemp Issue, and sorry about the "crap markup/argh"....I'd never had to fill one of those forms in before. Jeff / Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

:-). No problem, I just like to comment as I fix things. You don't get the worst-formatted prize... now there's an idea William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that Mr Kemp is being slightly less than civil in his continued editing and discussion, please see this dif: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AArthur_Kemp&diff=262871715&oldid=262869175 . It's far beyond my authority to do anything about it, but perhaps you could lend him some more helpful advice? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Guettarda

WMC, I'm sure you didn't know when you left a New Years' Day message to Guettarda, but you may want to read this. I think there's some very bad news for his family. OrangeMarlin 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Argh. That was spectaculary badly timed of me. Thanks for letting me know William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong. What a sad story. OrangeMarlin 22:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem William. Though I must say I'm rather less fond of the water than I was a couple days ago. Guettarda (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My talk

Just to let you know that I have responded on my talk page. --Russavia 00:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to thank you for protecting Republika Srpska page. There were a lot of one sided and biased edits lately that were by no means constructive, so this protection will ensure its integrity. I appreciate your honesty and your actions, and I am happy to see that there are some decent moderators around on wiki. All the best! Onyxig (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

National Conference of Synagogue Youth

Can we keep the article semi-protected? The protection is over tomorrow and several of the IP numbers that keep removing material are still active on other pages? If not, can you stop by to make sure there is not a repeat of the edit wars?--Eat-more-radish (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm going to let it expire and see what happens. If the anons pile in, let me know William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Eat-more-radish (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It took our anon IP numbers a week to return to the entry. One just undid the entire current consensus back to the banned version of last month. I can easily revert it but I do not want to start an edit war. Any thoughts? semi-protected again? --Eat-more-radish (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas

Can you explain why you reverted to this one?:

Because of the way air is trapped in ice (pores in the ice close off slowly to form bubbles deep within the firn) and the time period represented in each ice sample analyzed, these figures represent averages of atmospheric concentrations of up to a few centuries rather than annual or decadal levels.

As far as i've read, its the compression and analysis methodology that makes it on a century scale. We have several ice core analyses that have better than a century scale for both dO18 and CO2. For instance the Law Dome. I suppose that you are thinking Antarctic deep time cores, instead of ice cores in general? (the deeper the time, the more compressed the layer?)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - or is this a case of the depth of the firn, and measuring the difference in delta's? (ie. the real resolution is in centuries, but the derived figures from looking at delta's can give a smaller temporal resolution?). I'm curious - not critical. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To be more specific, we have a ±2 year resolution in the Law Dome ice-core to 1805, and a ±10 year resolution down to 1350. - there is something here i must have missed.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It does depend on what depth you're looking at. I'll have to check up on the details, but I very much doubt the 2y resolution on the Law Dome stuff represents atmospheric values - those are sample values (and do you mean resolution in the ice, or the bubbles?) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, it says it in ice core - several times, in fact. Pores close off slowly, and then they do close, the air inside will be a mixture of many different times. Up to thousands of years, for Vostok William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Here is my understanding: When the firn is closed (which is at a specific depth), then the air, would be a sample of the air at the firn closing time, since it could circulate freely until that time... This gives a different age of the snow and the trappend air - which may differ in up to several hundreds of years.... BUT that is the difference between the age of the ice and the age of the trapped air... Not a description of what period the air is a sample of. If you take a look at the digital data from the Law Dome, you can see that the data is significantly higher in resolution, than what the text above indicates is possible (its down to annual and decadal) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption that the air "could circulate freely until that time" is mistaken. The air bubbles are cut off from the surface air in a gradual process, with less and less gas exchange as time progresses (and ice layers increase). With some simplification, surface air has to permeate more and more layers of ice until it reaches a given bubble. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i realized that after i wrote it. But it actually doesn't change the point, does it? Or am i mistaken in all of the rest? (i could be) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If the close-of time is 1kyr, it means the air in the bubble is some mixture of air from the preceeding 1kyr. Thats my point William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But the sealing depth of the Law Dome is 72 meters with an air age of 40±1 years. Thats in decades not centuries. So even if there is a slow mixture of all years before closing - the age of the air is still only an average over 40 years. And if the yearly layers are well-defined, then you can determine the individual years, by comparison to the averages for the previous and the later bubbles - right? ie. layer N (avg(Y;Y+40)) N+1 (avg(Y+1;Y+40)) or am i completely mistaken (again)? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It varies with site, of course. Law Dome is a coastal site with a high accumulation rate and correspondingly short record . Inland sites have much lower accumulation, longer records, and longer close-of times William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes i am aware of that. But please reread the text above, with ice-records in general in mind. I would say that while the text may not be entirely incorrect, it is generally misleading - or am i again totally off track? I know that i have a serious weakness in persisting in questioning things, when i haven't got a full understanding (or am misinterpretating things) so please bear with me ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Errm, this is all in the context of ~10 kyr cores so the Law Dome is a poor example. I don't quite understand your "generally misleading"... its true of all the long cores William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Ice cores, I was made aware of the Zeebe et al ice core study purpoting a rather stable Carbon dioxide during the last 600.000 years. Richard E. Zeebe & Ken Caldeira: Close mass balance of long-term carbon fluxes from ice-core CO2 and ocean chemistry records Nature Geoscience 1, 312 - 315 (2008) Published online: 27 April 2008, doi:10.1038/ngeo185 Before fossil fuels, Earth’s minerals kept CO2 in check, UH News der Universität Hawaii 28.4.2008. My first impression was they have measured a mixture of nowadays air with the one found in the specimen, however its the flow rate, not the absolute value ;). Other proxys are much quicker, the Scherer paper shows e.g. stalagmite isotopes. One could assume that climate changes in that time either didnt have to do with carbon or - being regional - didnt have much influence on this proxy or as said above, its more a longterm average due to homogenization in the ice. In the latter case, the press release tends to oversell the message. Would be great to have your opinion on that. BR --Polentario (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

They are using the std ice cores, so they are using the same CO2 record over the last 600 kyr that everyone else uses William M. Connolley (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats true howver not answering the question. --Polentario (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What was the question? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wether the purported slow flux is real or an artefact --Polentario (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SSP filed for Nangparbat

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat Most of "their" articles are still semi-protected, so I filed this before they can run free Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Filed in the wrong place. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nangparbat_(2nd) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, I was unable to list it under open cases Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat‎ is the main article; Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nangparbat_(2nd) is the redirecter now. Damn this is confusing. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'mnot sure what the point is. Are we in any doubt about this being NP? BTW, checkuser only works if the account has been used within X, where X is a month or so William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Another admin, User:Jehochman, told me some time around Thanksgivings 2008 to file one of these. I had finals and midterms to deal with, and then I got lazy; I finally filed it last night so that I could get it over with before school starts again. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

GoRight

FYI - GoRight's comments were certainly disruptive and inflammatory - his reply to Stephan was basically a conspiracy theory masquerading as a talk page comment, and the "have you stopped beating your wife" question to Kim was also unacceptable, and both should have been reverted. You might want to start an ANI thread on his behavior. Raul654 (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Too late now. But I doubt it would help. The less dramah the bettah William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

ziggymaster/wondergirls/etc/etc

Thanks for taking the time to look at my 3RR and sockpuppet reports, I was happy to see two rather unsubtle socks indef blocked.

Could you give me your opinion on Pds0101 please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Pds0101

This account seems to alternate between periods of nothing and periods of editing, inline with Ziggymaster/Wondergirls/Lakshmix but more importantly for an account with a very limited scope of topics edited, it shares a suprisingly large amount of articles with Ziggy/Wonder/Laks

Doesn't obviously fit the pattern. Talks, for example. You'll have to make a clearer case William M. Connolley (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that Ziggymaster should be blocked? I have limited experience with sock reports, is the puppet master normally left with one account to edit with - ie. just socks removed - or all accounts are indef blocked?

Z maybe; on the grounds of the insults hurled via WG. However, Z is now quiet, so a bit pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, if you have some time please take a look at the Pds0101 account, as it is quite active on the South Korea article at the moment - and personally (and yes perhaps I am taking this personally) I would block Ziggymaster, Pds0101 and all IPs connected - then perhaps allow ziggymaster back in a while to continue with one account only.

It is possible though that my vindictive streak would prevent me from ever being an admin.

Didn't stop me :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize

I'm sorry. It is just hard to accept that an anonymous user goes through articles and creates hoaxes, and keeps reverting instead of explaining on the talk page. I know that it takes at least two for an edit war to start and I apologize for edit warring. What should I do when the vandal comes back?Surtsicna (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandals need to be reported for vandalism, not reverted to death. For this case, since I know whats going on, you can try telling me if you like. In general, something like WP:AIV William M. Connolley (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for offering me your help! (S)he is back for the third time. (S)he tried to replace Infobox Royalty with Infobox Person in Peter Philips article, but when that change got reverted by another user, (s)he reverted all my changes of other articles (such as Lady Gabriella Windsor, James Ogilvy, etc). This is getting really annoying. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I've been around: 1 week block; resumption of editing as incurred previous block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC) solves that IP. Doesn't seem to have come back yet William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

G-force

This was entirely unhelpful and I've removed it. The situation is imflamed enough; don't make it worse. As to the substance: soliciting opinions is entirely sensible, whether on or off wiki. Soliciting contributions to an edit war is another matter, but that isn't whats happening. Please help defuse this conflict William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Um. I don't understand your logic here, he's purely and simply canvasing off-wiki... via email at that. We've no way of judging who he's dragging into this. It's completely opaque. They're probably his buddies from work. This could never be unbiased.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(a) So what. Who cares? The new people either say helpful things, in which case you thank them; or they don't, in which case you ignore them. (b) If you really really do care, please say so in a less confrontational way William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And he's had a history of doing weird stuff in this regard, according to Steven Harris he dug up some notorious relativity crank in 2007 as an 'expert witness', and he's not exactly filling me with warm fuzzies this time either.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See above: who cares? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He's also done about 2 or 3 reverts since he was suspended for 3 hours, and about 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. He's still edit warring, and not just to me, and my edit was not intended to edit war in any way, and he still reverted it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This I'll take more seriously, and have a look William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just pulled out my popcorn and started watching this go down. It's starting to get bizarre.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is a very basic lack of understanding going on, and people are fighting over silly things in the wrong places. Please be patient. This will get sorted out, though not necessarily to your satisfaction William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits, reverting, and deletions

I have no intention of getting into a reversion war with you or anyone else. And, yes, I will mark reversions as reversions. But you too should abide by the rules of collaborative writing that everyone else abides by. Clearly, in an article on g-“force”, the role of force in accelerations should be clearly addressed in the article. The entire deletion of a relevant and topical section (the whole section) , while WP:BOLD of you, should have been discussed on the talk page. Admin-hood is not an entitlement for running roughshod over others. Another editor and I worked hard on that section to get it correct and encyclopedic. Deletion is just oh too easy. In my view, such a deletion is certainly not warranted nor desirable here. I’ve let most of your edits stand and am trying to edit in good faith here. I expect the same of you. Greg L (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you; the section should be removed. I've explained myself on the article talk page. As to admin-hood: of course; it confers no editing priviledges. I'm glad you're trying to edit in good faith, but surprised that you feel the need to mention it. It is assumed, on all sides, in the absence of evidence to the contrary William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let’s start talking on the Talk:g-force page. Thinly veiled implications on my talk page about “rv” for the benefit of your other “blocking” admin buds isn’t necessary with me, nor is it becoming of you. Greg L (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no veil William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One last thing here that isn’t suitable for the g-force talk page: I just now took special note of your I'm glad you're trying to edit in good faith, but surprised that you feel the need to mention it. I’m trying to be up front with you. I try to do the right thing. Don’t profess to be surprised that I stated that either. I say what I mean and don’t beat around the bush. I try not to engage in wikiwords, where mean-spirited editing hides behind a veneer of insincere civility. Unfortunately, I believe the Misplaced Pages culture tends to bring a bit of that out in all of us now and then. I find your above-quoted statement to be encroaching in this “wikiwords” territory, which doesn’t impress. If you and I will be courteous, honest, and respectful of each other, we will get along just fine. Does that work for you? Greg L (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Asserting that you are editing in good faith carries the regrettable implication that you think others are not. You have no grounds for that belief; but if you do think so, please say so clearly rather than by implication William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The only “implication” is what I said: I do not engage in a discredited practice that happens often enough that Misplaced Pages perceives the need offer advise on Dealing with bad faith. I am not interested in playing touché one-upmanship here. I suggest we instead focus on ensuring that g-force is factual and well cited. Greg L (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

Normally, I would take an extraordinarily dim view of deleting a post of mine on a talk page because you don’t find it “helpful.” I closely embrace the principle that the proper response to bad speech is ‘better’ speech. I am going to let this one slide because what is more important to me at this point is getting a good article on g-force, now that I’ve got so much effort into it. It was a pile of garbage a week ago. Unless my posts on talk pages shock the conscious of the editorial community due to an outrageous personal attack, do not censor my posts on talk pages again. If I have been uncivil to someone, there are processes to hold me accountable, RfCs, ANI’s etc. The other reason I’m letting this censorship slide is because you did the same for another party. Further, your message point was good. But there are other ways to make good points that hitting the key an deciding for yourself how I am to be permitted to share my thoughts in a venue that is a marketplace where thought is exchanged. Greg L (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

now that I’ve got so much effort into it. - you are showing signs of WP:OWN. Be cautious. I am in a slightly curious position, having decided to edit the article myself. I am not censoring your posts; I was removing inflammatory language (like "censor"). Unless my posts on talk pages shock the conscious of the editorial community due to an outrageous personal attack, do not censor my posts on talk pages again - no. Talk page posts may be removed simply for being unhelpful. Please strive harder not just to avoid incivility not to achieve civilty. Talk pages are not free-for-all marketplaces William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We’ll just have to agree to disagree about editors deleting others’ posts. And please don’t dismiss thoughtless wholesale deletion of entire sections of articles that other editors worked on by seizing upon my statement that “I worked hard on it” and claiming that this is evidence of WP:OWN. It is not. It is evidence that I expect that you will abide by community consensus on radical deletions to sections that previously had been perfectly stable and without controversy. That is not too much to ask. Greg L (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S As for your statement that I added the {cite} tag to, you may be right that this is a Misplaced Pages policy. Please point me to it. Greg L (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

But there is no community consensus. I want it out; you want it in. When I last looked at talk, no-one else had commented. You've said yourself that the article was a mess until just recently, so it can't possibly be stable. I find it regrettable that you think it reasonable to assert that my deletion of that section was "thoughtless". You may disagree, of course, but I'd ask you to show a little mor respect for other editors opinions. As for your fact tag, I've removed it. For recent examples, see Talk:Global warming William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

But there is no community consensus. Yes. None that can be identified (yet) because we haven’t discussed this amongst the other involved editors. Two others worked on that, User:John (another admin), and User:Army1987. That would be a nice thing to do. As for the {dispute} tag, thank you very much. But SBHarris isn’t yet accepting that “gravity and inertial accelerations are just accelerations”. See his post here. I’m thinking that we should just conduct an on-the-talk-page RfC to decide what we want to say on this matter. Would that be a sensible thing? Greg L (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

SBHarris appears to be badly confused William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:G-force

Glad to see you bringing yourself into this. I'll try not to bring any of the chemistry empire-building ("cultural imperialism" you jokingly called it) along. It strikes me you could use me as a sounding board; I am not a physicist but am strong on science. I did one year of university physics 25 years ago. If I can't understand something, it probably doesn't belong on the article, agreed? I find a lot of the bickering on the talk page very unhelpful, both in its confrontational tone (there are too many folks there who have outstanding grievances against each other) and in its high-flown, almost theological level. This should not be an article which is incomprehensible to the average reader, and, without dumbing it down unduly, we need to avoid making it impenetrably specialized. I appreciated your comments so far. --John (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, don't things come back to haunt one? It does seem to have become very heated over there, alas. My own view is that the article shouldn't be re-explaining things already better and more carefully explained on other articles William M. Connolley (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

another sock puppet report concerning ziggymaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ziggymaster#Report_date_January_24_2009.2C_13:08_.28UTC.29

if you have the time and the desire, please take a look at this.

thanks カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems likely. I've blocked the account William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Maureen Dowd

Hi William. Despite your warning on his talkpage following my previous report at 3RR Down Home In Suntlay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues his long term edit warring. I think a block is needed here. Thanks. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 02:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

I can only see one revert William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock Puppet "Donaldstrumpcard is Rob Mitchell from Tennessee

Donaldstrumpcard = "Rob Mitchell" from Tennessee. If you want to read more about him, here is the link http://gothicchess.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html

GothicChessInventor (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If I had to make an educated guess, it is "Just to clarify" who is Rob Mitchell who is Donaldstrumpcard

GothicChessInventor (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed Trice article

Hi,

Is there anything more you can do about the COI-ridden edit war that is the Ed Trice article? We still have GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs) and the mysterious Octogenarian 1928 (talk · contribs) constantly hammering home blanket reverts. Any advice/intervention appreciated! Regards, Oli Filth 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

EJ has blocked GCI for 24h for WP:COI, which will hopefully bring home to GCI that we really do mean at least some of our rules. Meanwhile, O1928 is mysterious but, I would now guess, probably a real person. His latest revert doesn't look too serious. As to advice: keep up the good work, I'd say, especially your exemplary efforts to work this out on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

After returning from a wikibreak of a couple of years I've been having a look round some contributors whose work I used to admire and I'm pleased to see you're still going strong. So here's a barnstar for defending the absolutely crucial topic of climate change from the utter bullshit that gets hurled at it by Misplaced Pages's less informed souls. You are a huge asset to the project and you must have the patience of a saint. Keep up the good work! — Trilobite 03:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC====)

Thanks for the praise; and welcome back yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You are being unfair

Lawrencekhoo http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Lawrencekhoo has reverted dozens of edits in the wage slavery article, and broken the 3-revert rule many times (see it for yourself!), why doesn't he get blocked??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityForever (talk • contribs)

Because you can't be bothered to list his reverts? Seriously, for a strict 3RR vio they have to be withni 24h. See WP:3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Goldberg

Finally! I welcome your intercession on this article. Actually, as you'll note, I requested it!! Editors Tom & Mark Shaw persist in deleting my legitimate additions to the "Criticism & Controversy" section of this article. If you check the log you will see that their reasons are either wholly capricious, or they leave no reason whatsoever. What has become clear from looking at their previous contributions, and their prior 3RR warnings, is that they are both extremely politically partisan, and abuse their roles as editors to further their partisan agendas.

Here's the bottomline. The article is a bio of a living political author/commentator who leans to the far right. He has written several books attacking what he argues is the hyperpartisanship of the media on the left. That's fine. But then I add a rebuttal from a notable member of the media who attacked the author/commentator for what he argued were blatant misrepresentations in his book. What's more, he pointed out the specific quotations where he compared what was written in the book with the actual transcripts of the events described, to prove the misrepresentation.

I added the transcript of his broadcast where it belonged in the article: under the "Criticism & Controversy" section. I included it verbatim and without editorial commentary, in its entirety to provide the complete context, and sourced and linked it to video of the actual broadcast. That is all.

But because the editors in question are unhappy with his comments, they consistently delete the entire passage. Not edit it, mind you; not open it for discussion or consensus - but simply delete it. This is consistent with past practices for both editors, and both have been disciplined for this behavior in the past.

It really is as simple a question as: Should Misplaced Pages be used by its editors as a mechanism for furthering those individual editors own transparent, and politically partisan agendas? 68.183.246.93 (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may, please: where else is this issue being discussed? I'm aware of this: and of course the discussion on the article's talk page: , but it seems that 68.183.246.93 is referring to discussion in some other venue. As a principal, I think I should be involved or at least aware. Thanks! Mark Shaw (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming Lead Re-write

Hi - I noticed you've been editing the lead section for global warming. As mentioned on the talk page, there is a re-write of it going on at User:Enuja/Sandbox, so if you could transfer your edits over there and help with work on it, it would be very much appreciated. Awickert (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed. Best of luck with it. My observation is that sandbox re-writes rarely work, though you're welcome to try. Please don't rely on me to xfer stuff, though. I'll watch William M. Connolley (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - I'll transfer references: would like your feedback, though, on the final version before it's up. Awickert (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stick with the sandbox, or your edits may be partially or wholly reversed. Please note also that if you don't like elements of an argument, or citations within it, you should make selective changes rather than stripping out the whole argument. People are likely to get annoyed if you continue to do this.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I replied on the article's talk page. Hopefully you'll understand. I believe William M. Connolley had good reasons for removing it, some of which are the same as I had for tempering it in the sandbox. Let's continue the discussion on the talk page. Awickert (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you have a look in the sndboax so you don't feel the need to addressively edit our work when we post it pleaseAndrewjlockley (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW sorry for accusing you of a bad faith edit, albeit for about a minute! I didn't realise your were a long-time contributor to the page.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Donaldstrumpcard is not a sock

I am in contact with User_talk:Donaldstrumpcard via private email. Yes, it was a SPA to counter some of the disappointment on the web with the low quality of the Ed Trice article (which I've been working with Oli Filth to improve), but the owner of this account is a genuine person and not a sock. Yes, he engaged in disruptive editing and I am explaining to him Wikiquette so he doesn't do that again. Please unblock the account or explain why the account shouldn't be unblocked. Just to clarify (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Check User Singer and all that

Please see my remark here . Have I missed something or did this guy just self declare as a sock puppet? --BozMo talk 21:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh lord, not the Singer cesspit again :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Danced the mess around a little William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Runaway climate change

Surely I will regret saying this but why don't you have a look at runaway climate change and see if you can improve it? I know you have strong opinions. Please use a scalpel, not an axe ;-) Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I admire your bravery William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

All your comments have been actioned or commented onAndrewjlockley (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

More commented than actionned, I fear. I'm not going to argue over detail. That was a sort-of test to see how reasonable you were going to be, which you failed, from my perspective. I think we need to sort out the major question of definition first; details can come later William M. Connolley (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you perhaps being a bit too personal here? I've addressed all the concerns you've highlighted, in the best way I could see to do so at the time. If you think my work needs further improvement, please do point it out. I appreciate your continuing demands for academic rigour, and the time you devote to making them. However, I think that you've often been a little cavalier in your editing of others' work, and it could be argued you've been a little casual with things like merge procedure. Please do carry on testing editors' work to make wiki better, but please try and be respectful of edits and of editors when you do it! ThanksAndrewjlockley (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. You've "addressed" my concerns, but not in a way that I found acceptable. As I've said, on talk and AFD, I think the fundamental problem is that we don't know what RAC actually is William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Runaway_climate_change#Rebuild so I can work on it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected

I'm just notifying you that I fully protected Oj, svijetla majska zoro for a week. I figure this will give them a week to discuss things. I saw you blocked each of the offenders for edit warring so I decided to drop by and make sure you were aware of my protection. Also, you seem to be more familiar with the case at hand so if you feel it would be better, you can unprotect the article sooner than one week without any objections from myself. Thanks and happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've decided to try unprotecting it, and watching it carefully, and threatening people with a big stick, to see if that helps William M. Connolley (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Callendar Effect and historical context

Yeah, I think one of the things we're bad at doing is accounting for historical aspects of a subject. The term is not in use any more but it probably has a place somewhere in the historical context. There's a recent discussion germaine to this here. --TS 17:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm with C: Age of the Earth *should* include historical context of how old people thought the earth was William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Cambridge 2

Provisionally scheduled for February 28. Comments welcome, & seeing you there even better! Dsp13 (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have come last time but I forgot. Maybe I can do better this time William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

septics

In the top of your talk page, might you have meant "skeptics"? : ) Awickert (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

:-)

: ) I thought there might have been something to it! Awickert (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought it had connotations to a famous Singer ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

H0 scale

Hello, I have removed the protection you added to this page as it was not actually making any difference to who could/could not edit the page, so to reduce confusion and to stop it appearing in logs. Pages on the English Misplaced Pages can only be moved by autoconfirmed uses with current software settings. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

OK William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor conflict help

Hello I'm not sure if you have any authority to officially warn editors but if you do I'd appreciate your help. I refer to the talk page for : 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. I don't know anyone with admin privelidges, so I would appreciate if you could talk to User:Wikifan. Esspecially his accusations of Anti-Semitism which are wholly unnapropriate. I don't know if your the one I should come to with this? Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The <div> tag and Cascading Style Sheets_tag_and_Cascading_Style_Sheets-Current-2009-02-03T06:39:00.000Z">

The <div> tag is part of the HTML standard, and in essence lets you group things logically in a HTML page. Since different user agents have different needs and treat the data differently (e.g. a screen reader for the visually impaired, a bot or a normal browser like Firefox) the rendering of elements and the logical structure has been separated into two different languages: HTML and CSS.

HTML is supposed to structure the document logically while CSS is used to change the visual appearance of a page. A website usually only has one or a few CSS documents (style sheets). The HTML documents can then share the same style sheet, providing consistent formatting across the site.

The div element has two attributes, class and style, that is linked to the style sheet. The class attribute determines what "class" the element belong to. In the style sheet it is then possible to define a default style for elements of this class.

The style element is what's most interesting here though, it lets you override the default style of an element. So the part within the style="" is actually CSS. W3C (website) are the ones in charge of the CSS standard and it can be found on their website. Unfortunately, the dominating browser sets the de facto standard so things might not work as expected or be implemented yet.

The W3C specifications aren't particularly good for learning but they are good as references. What you are looking for is probably: .

If you search the webb for CSS you will find countless examples and tutorials. Quick googling turned up this for example: .

I took the liberty to modify your div tags on this page as an example, feel free to modify and revert as you like. I hope this is somewhat helpful at least. :)
—Apis (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)_tag_and_Cascading_Style_Sheets"> _tag_and_Cascading_Style_Sheets">