User talk:William M. Connolley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
There is no Cabal


Fancy a scull? Bridge-to-bridge: 12:23; 12:28; headcourse 13:25.
Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg
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.

  • Proverb: if you have nothing new to say, don't say it.
  • Thought for the day:
  • There's no light the foolish can see better by [1]

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.

My ContribsBlocksProtectsDeletionsBlock logCount watchersEdit countWikiBlame

I'm Number 10

ERA40 Juli 1979, omega at 500 hPa[edit]

Dear Dr. Connolley,

with interest I have studied this figure.


I wonder why there is such a strong down-draft over the eastern Mediterranean. Is it a special feature of the large Indian monsoon anticyclone and if so why is it downwelling right there? Thank you in advance for any help on this. Kind regards, Hella Riede 18:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Thermal underwear[edit]

Blast from the past[edit]

Not to creep you out, but I was looking through old RfAs and I found this, from your second, and succesful, RfA. To the question of: How do you see Wikipedia in 2010 ?

OK, for what its worth, here is the rest: I see wikipedia continuing its growth and influence. The problems of scaling will continue: how to smoothly adapt current practices to a larger community. At the moment this appears to be working mostly OK. Problems exist with the gap between arbcomm level and admin level: I expect this to have to be bridged/changed someway well before 2010. I very much hope more experts - from my area of interests, particularly scientists - will contribute: at the moment all too few do. To make this work, we will have to find some way to welcome and encourage them and their contributions without damaging the wiki ethos. This isn't working terribly well at the moment. I predict that wiki will still be a benevolent dictatorship in 2010 - the problems of transition to full user sovereignty are not worth solving at this stage. William M. Connolley 20:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Thought you'd be amused. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm yes. "Prediction is hard, especially of the future" as they say William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Ha. So they say. I'm really good at the past prediction part though. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

More thermals[edit]

Service award update[edit]

Editor - lapis philosophorum star.jpg
Hello, William M. Connolley! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system.

Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Argh, I hate it when these things change :-( Oh well, I'll see if the new one looks any prettier than the old :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic topography[edit]

To William and his talk page stalkers:

Would you (ambiguously singular or plural) like to expand the portion of "Dynamic topography" that is about the oceans?

I am planning on doing some expansion of the solid-Earth-geophysics portion of that article (which currently covers both the dynamically-supported ocean elevations and topography due to motion of material in the mantle), but I think it would be a disservice to continue to ignore the ocean part. Ideally, we would have two separate standalone articles.

Awickert (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. How analogous are they? I never got through reading Gill, so maybe now is my chance :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know anything about it in the oceans; in the Earth it is due to motion in the mantle that creates normal tractions on interfaces such as the surface, the upper/lower mantle discontinuity, the core-mantle boundary, etc. Since it is supposed to be about the motion of seawater, I can imagine how the physics could be identical, but I can't say for sure and about to head out the door: off to see a friend perform in Guettarda's favorite musical, Awickert (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Careful. That is pretty clear evidence of a Cabal, or possibly a Cadre William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Cadre, I think. In our obligatory red shirts. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking about "Gang of N." It has a nice math/science ring to it, and evokes the Gang of Four. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
While "Gang of N" has a certain ring to it (the definitions are so amorphous, no one can agree how many there are), I think "Gang of i" might be more appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I was totally baffled by "Guettarda's favourite musical"...until I remembered that conversation. It was especially puzzling since I've never seen it, have no idea what it's actually about, and don't even know what comes after the second "Oklahoma!" Guettarda (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a good one - you should see it. Back to the topic: if it turns out that the underlying physics are the same, but just expressed in different media, I bet we could leave it at one article. If they are fundamentally different, then let's split. Awickert (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)



Exoplanets and the Intermediate General Circulation Model[edit]

Steven Vogt talks about a scientist who modeled the atmospheric circulation of a tidally locked exoplanet like Gliese 581 g in its habitable zone.[24] I'm not sure which paper Vogt is referring to here. Would you be able to add a discussion about this to the Gliese 581 g article? No hurry on this. It's in the video if you get a chance to watch it (Event begins sometime around 29:27). Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

They have really irritating video... can't they just put it on youtube :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting how I asked you this question right as it became an issue. An editor just added that the tidally locked sides would be "blazing hot in the light side to freezing cold in the dark side", however I removed this because Vogt seems to refer to the climate models several times that contradict this statement. Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
And now, I've restored it after finding the source. Viriditas (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've evaded the issue for the moment but put a comment about something else on the talk page. Thanks. Meanwhile, if you look at the PR puff [ - notice in the pic the sun is orange/red, as presumably it should be, but mysteriously the light reflected off the clouds has become white William M. Connolley (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I finally found the guy and his work. His name is James Kasting. Have you heard of him?Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Nope. But I have found and now read Joshi et al. 1997 which looks to be the main source for the atmospheres stuff. Its quite interesting. I'll summarise it here, prior to dumping it somewhere: put it in User:William M. Connolley/Atmospheric general circulation on tidally locked planets <snipped to sub page>

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. But isn't deposition of CO2 exothermic and thus would release heat into the atmosphere on the cold side so it would get warmer? — Coren (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, obviously the GHE would be reduced by the loss and that would overwhelm the small amount of heat gained from deposition. — Coren (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the heat released is small, and is soon lost. Its vaguely similar to the way that waste heat from fossil fuel combustion is far less important than the CO2 released William M. Connolley (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Gurk: I've just noticed that Vogt et al. say M stars emit a large amount of their radiation in the infrared. As a result, since the greenhouse effect works by absorbing infrared radiation, the surface temperatures would be higher than predicted by such simple calculations. [25] This is very badly broken. Oops William M. Connolley (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback requested[edit]

Sorry to hear you are currently blocked, but could I get your professional opinion on this discussion? Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just looking. At first sight the edits are entirely reasonable. It seems plausible that L is R. T. Pierrehumbert - it is probably worth asking him to confirm that he asserts that (he just about has, but not quite explicitly). In which case I think the COI claims aren't very helpful: it isn't as if he is promoting some pet theory, and he would be a very valuable contributor to have editing wiki so best to be nice to him. Again, at first sight, the major difference between this and previous work appears to be using an ocean rather than a land-only planet; I don't know which is more likely. L suggests on talk that really this stuff isn't about Gleis but is common to all tidally locked planets; I started some wurbling in that direction at User:William M. Connolley/Atmospheric general circulation on tidally locked planets but then got distracted William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Information is hard to erase[edit]

[26] Count Iblis (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW as the the person who had the largest number of entries on your deleted page, I have created a page containing the log of page diffs here. I have an impaired memory and it is helpful for me to have these kind of aide memoires. If you wish to extend that list of diff logs to include any other contributions listed by author without disparaging edit summaries or commentary you are entirely free to do so. But you are also free to ignore it or ask me to delete it. For my part of the favour please do and try harder; I can assure you, you have barely scratched the surface of my stupidity. --BozMo talk 08:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. BozMo, I'm baffled: you've just willfully recreated a deleted page. How do you justify doing that? Since admins have no special rights (other than their tools) it is no more lgal for you to have that page than for me. Which implies that either you have sinned, or that I am free to copy it back into my user space William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
For what its worth I think context is everything. The arguments about the deletion of the page turned considerably around the PAs in the edit history and inference from how the entries came about. I did not recreate and move the page (or could have followed the convention of returning the page content to its owner) but thoughtfully created a page which preserves some of the content. On top of which for my part of the favour (the diffs on edits of mine) I am interested in whether the community is really going to declare me to be attacking myself. If my list gets deleted my next attempt would be to create a page with "things people say" as a title and include only my own diffs. To be honest it is a sad day for Wikipedia when an opinion on a diff is construed as a PA. The whole point is that you are allowed to dislike an edit, but not dislike the editor. --BozMo talk 12:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah well. If your page survives deletion and/or you aren't bothered by time-wasters for a day or two, then I'll just re-create my page starting from yours William M. Connolley (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


You and your talk page watchers are invited to look at User:Atmoz/photoemission spectroscopy and see if there is anything worth merging into Photoemission spectroscopy. I'll likely get around to it eventually, but the folk that go around nominating userpages for MfDs will likely find if before then. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Already watching it :-). You're more likely to get some use out of one of the watchers than me, though William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Record your cleanup[edit]

Hello. Could you please record your work progress at the newly created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Top edits and, if you haven't done so yet, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup#Cleanup lists. The first link lists the most frequently articles edited by Jagged 85 by number of edits, the latter by total number of bytes added by him. As you know, keeping track of the cleanup effort is paramount to avoid double work. Thanks and regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 stuff[edit]

I missed the whole business with this, seems I was lucky. From what I gather from Tkuvho accusations being hurled toward me, he was abusing references? Anyways I thought you could take a look at Differential (infinitesimal) in its history section, Jagged 85 added some stuff that looks questionable to me and I thought you might know for sure at a glance. Thenub314 (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Jagged85 stuff rumbles on; there is no need for you to miss it all (though I'd run screaming if I were you). I'll look at D(i) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, instantly recognisable. I could dig out the long tedious discussion we had over that, if you really want to see it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


WP:Scientific point of view[edit]

I've started to rewrite this, made an essay out of it and changed the argument. I argue that NPOV requires one to stick to SPOV on science articles, so sticking to SPOV on such articles is mandatory. If you have time, you can help expand it and perhaps it can later be proposed as a new policy. Count Iblis (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


At the moment, i am one of at least 8 editors who have complained about the current state of the circumcision article which was recently changed to sound much more pro-circumcision. There are a group of established editors who look like they are tag-teaming (Jakew, Jayjg, User:Avraham and User:Jmh649) supporting this pro-circumcision stance. Jakew, Avi and Jayjg have been edit-warring on this article with their pro-circumcision stance since at least 2007/2008. Do you have any opinions on this matter? Do you think an RfC or arbitration is appropriate? Thanks for reading. Pass a Method talk 10:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I would give up, you might as well persuade Conservapedia to take a balanced view on Global Warming. One editor in particular has owned that article for about six years and is a long term persistent pro-circumcision lobbyist, with occasional support. Even if you manage to get any kind of balance on the article, which would be impressive, you will find it erode into being pro cutting again over time. The resident editors will put far more time and effort into findly sources which support them etc than you will ever manage to, they are expert in Wikilaw too. You will encounter similar problems on other "optional surgery" kind of topics including cosmetic plastic surgery. Try to get a Germaine Greer perspective into Breast implant if you feel like a challenge. If you take it to the wider community the very strong USA bias toward pointless surgical intervention (financial incentive and knowledge converge) means you can never get consensus because there are always a few "looks ok to me" fruitcakes on the boards. Take it off your watchlist and concentrate on parts of Wikipedia where the improvement from effort is higher. (Circumcision is unusual in that generally the pro-surgery bias comes from practitioners with obvious financial incentives; with circumcisions the motivation of the resident team is less financial). --BozMo talk 15:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The lobby seems to advocate a bit more agressive pro-circumcision wording over the past month. Probably has something to do with the California vote to ban circumcision this year. Pass a Method talk 15:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Just pretend to yourself it is not part of Wikipedia but is a highly selection pro Circumcision lobby page. Then you won't lose sleep. --BozMo talk 05:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


Not meaning to offend, but... are you nuts? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I, naturally, agree with SBHB. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I was meaning to say: Boris, thanks for your comment. But do please amplify it, as to the substance. Nathan you too. As for madness: at least I don't run in your state :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you enjoy dressing up in antlers and going for a walk in the woods during deer hunting season? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
We don't do that stuff in the Fens. Otter hunting, perhaps. Or mink? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar of diligence[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
You are awarded this Barnstar for diligent protection of the rules of Wikipedia. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


I'm sorry if I'm unclear--I'm not referring to arbitration cases but instances--but at this point it's all semantics. You aren't willing to accept responsibility for your actions, and so I don't support letting you off the leash you forged. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, won't do. You said "confirmation by WMC of the validity of all the complaints from previous cases". "cases" clearly means arbitration cases - it can't mean anything else. If you now wish to switch your wording to "instances" then you'll have to say what you mean by that. I've asked you which "cases" you mean, and I think you've evaded the issue. It looks to me like you simply made an error, but you're not prepared to correct yourself - hardly an inspiring example, indeed rather ironic, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
(ps: for anyone else wondering, the other half of this conversation is [27]. Perhaps I need to bold the "if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there" in my edit notice William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
You aren't willing to accept responsibility for your actions - you are an impatient sort. I haven't answered you yet - I'm still trying to work out what you're talking about William M. Connolley (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The actual diffs showing alleged problematic behavior by William are mostly similar to this incident today. ArbCom was in denial about the underlying problem, they totally ignored the fact that the probation system that was implemented before the ArbCom case started was a total failure (indeed, if it had worked, there wouldn't have been an ArbCom case).

ArbCom managed to devote a whole paragraph on the most irrelevant incident you can think of, William inserting comments on postings on his talk page, see here. None of the other issues gets so much coverage. Since it was eventually decided that William was allowed to do this, this was a non-issue anyway, but it is of course a totally irrelevant issue as far as editing in the CC area is concerned. Count Iblis (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought William was crazy for wanting to be unbanned, and told him so. In the unlikely event his appeal is granted he'll have flocks of admins, partisans, and partisan admins circling to look for the tiniest misstep. (Cooler heads than mine agree on at least this point.) Someone will haul him before AE for not saying "please" is an edit summary or similar nonsense and he'll get blocked, which will justify Arbcom's locking him back up and throwing away the key. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
But to the point: do either of you know what DWF actually means by his talk of cases? Or, perhaps, what exactly is his confusion? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's do some mindreading. He wasn't an Arbitrator during the original case. Then let's look again at the final decision and see what someone who spends 20 seconds to read the findings about you would note. He would note the headlines, the links, because they have a blue color standing out from the main text, and phrases indicating bad behavior. The first headline is "William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped", the links refer to previous cases and the ominous words in the text that he would have noted in relation to these cases are "misused admin tools", "admonished", "restricted".
The headline of the next section is "William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic", the text of the section doesn't contain much notable facts (the links are all numbers). So that section would make a lesser impact. And the last section about BLP edits probably won't make much of an impact at all. The headline "William M. Connolley's edits to biographies of living persons" isn't a negative statement, the text doesn't contain any links at all, and no alarming words like "disruptive" etc., phrases like "not..... appropriately neutral", don't sound very alarming.
Clearly, of all these things that one would note in 20 seconds, the first section about previous cases stands out. Count Iblis (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
DWF, as he explained, almost certainly meant "instances" when he said "cases." Please WP:AGF.
case 1 n.1. An instance of something; an occurrence; an example: a case of mistaken identity.
It is reasonable that you, also in good faith, had the arbitration cases foremost in mind, and therefore interpreted his use of "case" in the legal instead of common sense. Instead of arguing about this, why don't you just accept his explanation? The fact that you are making a mountain of this molehill does not bode well for your re-entry into editing on controversial pages. Yopienso (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
William won't be allowed to edit BLP pages, so he'll be kept away from anything that is controversial about the CC area here on Wikipedia. The Wiki policies are a good enough barrier to keep the real world public controversy about the science of global warming out of the science articles, in case of the BLP articles this is not the case. Count Iblis (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm generally optimistic, and Boris generally pessimistic, and up to now he has won hands down. But we'll see William M. Connolley (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


Would you be prepared to have another look at the NLP article? Encyclotadd still doesn't get the principle of OR and is now in breech of 3rr. I could just make a 3rr report, but I am (for the umpteenth time) being accused of a COI and Offtoriorob has jumped in as well (any area of wikipedia where I am involved in any controversy he arrives). With Chuckfreyconsultant permanently banned after taking umbrage over NLP issues I think this needs a neutral perspective. --Snowded TALK 21:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid the edit war there, oh dear William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution[edit]

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Polar see-saw[edit]

Here's something that probably should be deleted. or maybe turned into a redirect to Antarctic Cooling Controversy. I haven't been around enough lately to remember how to do it. Apologies for just dumping this on you, but know you get it taken care of. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 19:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a valid article; it shouldn't be merged into ACC. I've hacked it a bit and removed some of the nonsense William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello William M. Connolley. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Economics of global warming[edit]

I've recently glanced at a few sections of Economics of global warming and frankly, I'm appalled. If it was my choice, I'd opt for blowing it up and starting from scratch, but it isn't my call. That leaves clean-up as an option, but frankly, I'd find cleanup of the Augean stables easier.

Any interest in pitching in?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I'd avoided having that on my watchlist. Certainly the intro reads very oddly. I've only skimmed the rest; I'm going to be busy for a week or so, but after that I'm happy to look more or help in any rework William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course, there's no rush, and I have some real-life issues that will keep me occupied a fair bit. I don't think warming issues per se are the main problems. I intend to concentrate on some of the finance issues such as the jumbled discussion of risk, and the odd insertion of portfolio theory. However, when it comes to the poor handling of the Kaya identity, I trust you are more familiar than I with the proper presentation.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability for websites[edit]

So whilst I was celebrating one of our websites winning the BBC One World "New Media Award" (sponsored by Google, and presented by Jon Snow, no less) I was wondering it this was enough to make it notable and hence worth its own article on Wikipedia. I am hopelessly conflicted (since I did the concept design) but perhaps you or a watcher might take have a quick think? Despite the award I guess verifiable content for the article if you exclude might be tricky to come by (there is quite a bit of material published as a Plone case study somewhere I think. --BozMo talk 18:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats for the award! Great work, too! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
My congratulations, too. But I have been, and will be, busy in the real world William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Treasure on Wikipedia[edit]

Not seen this from the history of Caius before "He insisted that the college admit no scholar who “is deformed, dumb, blind, lame, maimed, mutilated, a Welshman, or suffering from any grave or contagious illness, or an invalid, that is sick in a serious measure”. Just going through my contact list for some Welsh people to send it to. --BozMo talk 12:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That might be why they're fast William M. Connolley (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Presumably contagion and Welsh are the only prohibitions which are still legally possible (and Welsh would be illegal too if it were a nationality). --BozMo talk 19:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Uptick in violent crime[edit]

Are you aware that a small increase in violent crime in the U.S. is being attributed to climate change leading to an early spring and to increased methamphetamine production due to the destruction of outdoor marijuana crops as a result of drought? According to a recent news story, "56 percent of the United States was in drought conditions as of May 8, almost twice the area compared to last year at this time, according to data from the U.S. Drought Monitor."[28] Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen the violent crime bit, though the Fight Entropy blog has some useful stuff, e.g. and the more important stuff about climate and conflict,
I don't find the stuff from Lester Brown in your link convincing, though. "Our entire agricultural system is geared to the stable climate conditions we've enjoyed for the last few thousand years. And that's changing," is dubious - there have been some large changes over those 2kyr. And the land-grab stuff is similarly dodgy William M. Connolley (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. What do you make of the current drought conditions in the United States and Mexico? Are they unusual? Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay replying. As you might be able to guess, this is because I don't have a good answer to give. They are clearly unusual in the context of the recent few decades past, but quite possibly not in the context of the longer term. More interesting still is whether they will continue. I have no answer to that, either William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hot off the press. Is it time to start worrying about the clathrate gun hypothesis? Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I see your link and raise you ;-) But as for warmth: well, its June here, and cold, and its been raining for weeks. By which I mean, for every "its warm" story you'll find another "its cold" story. So that isn't the way to do it: the way to do it is to look at global temperatures over the longer term, or sea ice, or whatever. And not worry too much that it is unexciting William M. Connolley (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know, the weather in North America for the last year or so has been very strange. BTW, in case you missed this, enjoy. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Isn't "cold and rainy" the traditional weather of Britain? If you insist on an island, but don't like the weather, move to Crete! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen it. You might like this :-). Weather: well, there are limits. And its Mays next week, so it had better get better William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Check out Curiousity's Seven Minutes of Terror if you haven't already seen it. Great stuff. Too bad NASA wasn't making these types of videos ten years ago. Viriditas (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Indian mathematics[edit]

Hello, I am a user very active in the Good Article nominating system. I often look and scout for articles that could pass as GAs. I was sifting through WikiProject Mathematics, and found this article. You seem to be the editor who has has the most recent edits done, and I was wondering, do think the article is ready to go under a GA review. If so, Great! If not, what could be done to improve it. I am really exuberant when an article I nominate becomes a GA, and would like for this one to. Please, help this article become a GA. Thanks mate! Oakley77 (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think all I've done there is tone things down a bit. But there is far more to be done. It looks to me to have problems, semi-nationalistic ones, in over-promoting the role of IM and failing to set it in its correct place. For example that Fields of Indian mathematics section appears to assert that they invented formal grammar. Or it did, until I just removed it. In short, I wouldn't trust it at all William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)



(Change of subject) Did you clear that picture up there with Larry Sanger? Apparently he has teamed up with Fox News to protect us... --Guy Macon (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I discussed this on a blog a little while ago, I don't think I convinced anyone over there. Oh... you're referring to my edit-notice pic, aren't you? I thought you mean my current facebook pic... hold on... William M. Connolley (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I Didn't know about the blog. I was just setting up for some good-natured teasing about you allegedly looking underage in that photo. (Note to talk page stalkers: you have to click on the edit button to see the picture I am talking about). Nice comments on that blog, BTW. Alas, you can't use reason to change a person's mind when they didn't use reason to arrive at their position in the first place. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
For most people, nudity and swear words have their place and time. I was at a party once, and we were all having a great time, when out of the blue, some guy comes up to a group of us, takes his "member" out of his pants, and starts swinging it around, showing it to everybody. Now, nobody wanted to see that. However, if he had taken off his clothes and jumped in the pool, nobody would have even noticed (and in fact a very beautiful, well-endowed young lady did just that, and hardly an eye turned). So, I think the main objection that is reasonable, is context and distance. For example, if your child is doing a book report on Cleaveland, you probably don't want them have to read about a Cleaveland steamer (or try to explain it to them). For me, this can be fixed by correcting poor search terms and redirects, and I think the Sanger & Wikipedia is Porn crowd do have a point when they say it is easy to access the "wrong" material during a search. But, the answer isn't censorship, it's about finding new and better ways to optimize the search and retrieval process and to direct users to the content they are actually searching for instead. Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
BTW, the pic I was talking about is this. I decided not to upload it to wiki :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Really? (smile) I don't see a 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Compliance Notice... (Note to the humor impaired: STILL not being serious...) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:JournalScholar[edit]

Er, not that you created the attack..... I'll go leave a personal note on the user's talk page... sorry to bother you. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Ta. I asked DS to look into the issues around this but he didn't care. Someone should William M. Connolley (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring.[edit]

There's an interesting article in PLOS One about edit-warring. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... it's been cited in WP:CONSENSUS since March, thanks to a certain cynical bastard... :P MastCell Talk 04:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
That was the quote that "debates [edit-wars] rarely conclude on the basis of merit...." My initial impression of the article is that it missed some of the softer aspects of how things work out. But nice charts, and some interesting observations. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I read it - well, skimmed it - and I'll blog it (thanks). But I didn't find it that instructive, really. Perhaps too abstract William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Silence of the deniers[edit]

Tillman-man-man-man...long echo. [29] Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's only weather, and NOAA can't even assure growers that there is an end to the drought in sight so obviously their models are no use. Bit worrying that it is starting to "leave hungry countries in the Middle East and elsewhere scrambling" – chocks away, bandits at 12 o'clock etc.? Fortunately Tom Vilsack, the US agriculture secretary, is considering a rain prayer or rain dance. . . . dave souza, talk 06:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"Temperatures on land were the warmest ever recorded" in the U.S. for 2012. But not according to Ron Johnson, Republican United States Senator from Wisconsin:

A global warming skeptic, Johnson said extreme weather phenomena were better explained by sunspots than an overload of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as many scientists believe. "I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change," Johnson said. "It's not proven by any stretch of the imagination." Johnson, in an interview last month, described believers in manmade causes of climate change as "crazy" and the theory as "lunacy." "It's far more likely that it's just sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time," he said.[30]

Today, "the drought in southern Wisconsin was upgraded Thursday morning to extreme from severe, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor."[31] Viriditas (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I do like the "its far more likely to be something, anything, other that CO2 because that would be inconvenient..." William M. Connolley (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't the media have a responsibility to point out that Johnson's claims are not rooted in reality? Reporter Steve Schultze of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel covered the story as if Johnson's POV had some kind of credibility because he's a politician. But is there any reputable climate scientist who says extreme weather is better explained by sunspots? No, there isn't. So why does the reporter let the claim stand without any investigation, and act as if there isn't good evidence one way or the other? Exactly what kind of journalists are colleges turning out these days? Simply letting an authority repeat debunked nonsense without any type of challenge or correction is not journalism. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
On journalism, from a set that starts here. . . dave souza, talk 08:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I never thought I would ever say this, but thank goodness for ABC News. I will make an effort to patronize their advertisers. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Patronize them? That reminds me of the episode of Cheers where Sam had bar napkins made up that said: "Thank you for patronizing me".

Also, here's how things will actually play out, at least in the U.S.: climate change → more frequent and severe droughts → food prices skyrocket → consumers have less disposable income → people demand that we loosen regulations on oil companies so gas gets cheaper → gas does not get any cheaper but carbon emissions increase → return to beginning of this sentence. MastCell Talk 18:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling prophecy MastCell? (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Nope, facts: "June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe."[32] Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Treat with caution: Appell notes an error already pointed out by Tamino. Well, many of us aren't statisticians, especially me. . dave souza, talk 09:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That particular error turns out to be statistically interesting, but not important to the arguement William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Heh. That's what I get for citing Rolling Stone. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Rolling Stone does decent, if slightly sycophantic, celebrity sit-down pieces, but their scientific coverage generally appears to be fact-checked by Jenny McCarthy. Cite at your own risk. :P MastCell Talk 16:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A matter of presentation: JnG raises a similar caution about presentation of another statistic, and more recently has expressed cautious optimism for the coming months, as least for Tx. Perhaps rather hotter for most. . . dave souza, talk 09:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, that was me getting the two cases confused. So the one Tamino was talking about was the 1/3^13 one, for which ignoring auto-correlation turns out not to matter too much, because its small anyway (because the spatial region is just the US). The one V mentions - the 327 one - is talking about global temperature, where the autocorrelation is much higher, so 1/2^327 is badly wrong as a calculation. But I suspect the same underlying answer applies - that when you do take account of autocorrelation, the chances of it happening remains very low. But it would be good to get these things correct.
Mind you, this is all a great nonsense and only for public consumption: the reason we know its warmer is because of the temperature record. Looks at extremes isn't a good way to observe warming William M. Connolley (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone comment on this news item about the record melting of Greenland and what this means? Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The Graun quotes the NASA press release: "This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?", while noting that Lora Koenig, another Goddard glaciologist, told Nasa similar rapid melting occurs about every 150 years. But she warned there were wide-ranging potential implications from this year's thaw. . . dave souza, talk 08:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
JB's blog is interesting. See-also the most recent. I was a bit dubious about the every-150-years thing; would be nice to see the data William M. Connolley (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
In comments to this GPWayne suggests Alley, R.B., and S. Anandakrishnan. 1995. Variations in melt-layer frequency in the GISP2 ice core: implications for Holocene summer temperatures in central Greenland. Annals of Glaciology 21:64-70, but access restricted to IGS members. . . dave souza, talk 06:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
That can't be the right answer; its 1994 which is antique and its "only" proceedings, although it is a bit reviewed. Ah, but what about ? that looks more useful, and also rather blows the "every 150 years" nonsense William M. Connolley (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
<ec> I bow to your expertise. Rather a shame, I was hoping this ice melt wasn't as bad as it looks. . . dave souza, talk 17:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Update: the Graun's chatter now includes WildGlaciologist 26 July 2012 4:04PM proposing that the "150 years" is an overall average of the intervals in Alley and Anandakrishnan, obscuring the melt events being more frequent during the holocene optimum and the interval increasing to 250 years during the last 4,000 years (BP). Bit silly to put the nonsense in a press release if that's all it's based on. . dave souza, talk 18:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've already been asked about "all the ice in Greenland melting" (!!), and can only wonder how soon this palpable untruth is cited as evidence of "warmer" deceitfulness. The warm, brownish colors on the NASA image certainly suggests bare rock, and the new media don't seem to be dispelling the notion that all of the ice sheet is gone. Lest any passers-by get confused, we should point out the "Greenland-melt" is only of the surface of the Greenland ice sheet. The bulk of the ice sheet is still there. Else we would be seeing several meters of sea-level rise. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My reading was that it was pink for warm, meaning surface melting and a change in albedo. Bad enough, haven't yet seen any claims it was deep melt. . dave souza, talk 17:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oldest known climate records?[edit]

Greetings, please have a second look at the talk page (now with second source), also this article Prokaryotes (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your recent revert[edit]

Hi William, care to explain your revert, especially what you refer to as "rv a huge pile of changes. far too much of it was wrong." What in particular is wrong? Since I'm willing to edit recent changes, i ask you to discuss what you deem "wrong" on the article talk page, see you there. prokaryotes (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A discussion of recent edits can be found here prokaryotes (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear William,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Scott talk 00:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if its any good and we could all join? --BozMo talk 21:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Not too exciting so far :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Photo question[edit]

I'm cleaning out orphaned images and came across File:Jenny and another.jpg. What is depicted here? Is this worth keeping and moving to Commons? Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I guess? Is it a Jenny Lind model steam locomotive? In which case could we not include it here Jenny Lind locomotive? --BozMo talk 07:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you're probably wrong; its just a model steam engine called Jenny. At the Cambridge Model Engineering Society. Oh dear, that's aredlink. All right, then. Its probably of no great value alas William M. Connolley (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Please self revert[edit]

Purpose of tags is to call editor attention; sure the regulars who have watchlisted the page will see the talk page. The tag invites input from eds who have not watchlisted the page. I'll push the issue if need be. Before its over I'll likely RFC and village pump this too.

So instead of kneejerk reverting the tag and summarily dismissing the reasons I'm doing this at the talk page, please self revert and then say something on the merits besides IJUSTLIKEIT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the notification is not required, there is no hurry in resolving your suggestion either (and no clear solution in sight). Thus, such a high profile article shouldn't necessary get tagged. prokaryotes (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
How would non-regulars, who do not have the article watchlisted, know about the discussion without a tag? Oh! Of course! They might agree with me, so of course we don't want to have a tag. Gosh no. Sarcasm aside, consensus is only strong if it results from a bright light shining on an open process. Seems to me the anti-tag push is afraid of discussing the sources I have identified suggesting there might be something to concerns about WP:POVNAMING. Both you guys can only persuade me that there's no fire under the smoke by addressing the substance of this line of reasoning. If you try to stomp my effort, that just puffs oxygen into the coals so that worries about POV issues in the title burst into flame NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Why not focusing our energy on more pressing issues? prokaryotes (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
IDONTLIKEIT and AINTIMPORTANT-ATLEASTTOME don't really count when determining consensus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WMC, I'll wait two days before referring the improperly reverted tag to DRN. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

kneejerk - was that an attempt at polite conversation? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll just repeat my request to please self revert so that eds who visit the article but do not have the talk page watchlisted will also know about the conversation. That is, after all, the purpose of cleanup tags. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it was an attempt at a threat. (This is regarding the alleged disputed-title tag at Global warming, right?) Since those who editors who do not have the page watchlisted are presumably somewhat less than interested, and unlikely to be randomly patrolling this particular article, the primary effect of a tag would seem to be the canvassing of random passers-by. As the tag barely preceded his introduction of the supposed dispute, it seems to more in the nature of an advertisement for his "dispute". Seems to me the tagging was ill-advised, and mercifully removed. Going to DRN would be like getting an elephant into a teacup; I don't see how that would go well for anyone. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, since WMC almost always simply ignores me, I thought the courteous thing to do was to specify a time frame in which I would conclude I was being ignored, and then I'd work up the dispute resolution ladder like we're supposed to do. JJ, I don't plan to be patient if you poke me with personalizations and failures to AGF. That's not a threat either, just a statement that I expect you to follow the principles set down by ARBCOM in WP:ARBCC so we can improve the article, as several eds have remarked needs to be done.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you're rather trigger happy. (And will you now, again, accuse me of failing AGF?) Your "Do this, within two days! Or I'll do this!" — and that does appear to be the essence of what you're saying — certainly seems to be in the form of a threat. Did you really mean it that way? Or was it just little over-excitement? As to "dispute resolution ladder": I think you first have to have a dispute. Like, you could have first raised a question as to the adequacy of title. If discussion lead to an issue that we couldn't resolve amongst ourselves then perhaps DRN might warranted. Mind, I'm only trying to offer courteous comment. But if you're going to be so sensitive perhaps I should follow William's lead. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Concur with result. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Which result would that be? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, it looked like a threat. And "kneejerk" was incivil. I'm still waiting for a reply on that William M. Connolley (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── FYI, I've had an idea for an alternative approach to the substantive issue on my mind, so I'm going to put the tag issue in abeyance for now.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be courteous to inform us whether this apparent threat is still imminent, merely "in abeyance", or wholly withdrawn with regrets for having misstepped. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
DRN, of course, is entirely voluntary and lacks any authority to impose sanctions, but if you're having fun, by all means keep it up. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I was (again) just trying to offer a courteous comment. I guess that was a waste of time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Commentary on ed behavior outside of DR/ANI/AE does tend to fall in that category. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

See comment at NCAR page[edit]

…regarding the need for this article's citations to become encyclopedic (or risk article deletion). Note, I am a fan of NCAR, recently bringing online an article on Paul Julian linking there, and have been making generic improvements to the NCAR article. However, I can do no more than I have done—my expertise is elsewhere—and there are those with the responsibility for maintaining quality at WP, involved in efforts underway that could result in article deletion. This is esp. true, since the article has no independent, valid citations (no news or other outside reports, all press releases and self-published web material from the NCAR site itself). (!) Much of this is simply unacceptable in source and format. Enlist help, please, to move this forward. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I'm not terribly interested in stuff like the exact citation state, as long as the article itself is reasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Climate Colab[edit]

You may be interested in this rather new site.

  • "In the Climate CoLab, you can work with people from all over the world to create proposals for what to do about climate change."
  • "The Climate CoLab is a project of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence in collaboration with many other organizations."

If you're already aware of it, I would be interested in your opinion on the project. Yopienso (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your valuable Opinion[edit]

Do you think the end result of this will be accepted as a wikipedia article: ??? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


Who the hell are you to say that nationality is not a "good idea" !!! Its the single most important information a part from a date, to be able to put history in to the right context!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am not the contributor of the entry that you are reacting so indignantly against. But nationality is at best since the later 18th, if not the 19th century (and then only for some countries and hence really only after WW II) an indicator of belonging. Before that time, there was no concept of a nation. In a multiethnic state things become even more tricky. If you read the various claims about the ethnicity of Ibn Sina, for instance, you will see that nationality does not serve well here. It would make him an Uzbekistani, so to speak, because he clearly was not an Uzbek but a speaker of an Iranian-type language, probably a Persian dialect, for many years an inhabitant of the Samanid state and fleeing after its conquest by the Ghaznavids to Iran an inhabitant of the Abbasid caliphate and high-ranking official at various Buyid courts. Hence, things are not that simple as suggested by your rejoinder, unfortunately.-- Sonja Brentjes (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Tipping point[edit]

What does "nice" mean anyways?Countered (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a large word for one so short; part of its meaning is not to waste people's time adding pointless cn's just to make a point William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Nice is an ambiguous term that doesn't mean anything. What do you think is useful in weaseling? Who is it that thinks "tipping point" is ill defined? Countered (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
After doing a little more research, it appears it's not a term that is very well defined. I've seen the term used in reference to non-linear complex dynamical systems so I assumed that it may have originated there, but I can't find anyone that actually used the term from within climatology. Is there another word used for this concept? Countered (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not sure if this is right for the context but see IPCC AR5 WG2 glossary

Tipping point - A level of change in system properties beyond which a system reorganizes, often abruptly, and does not return to the initial state even if the drivers of the change are abated.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Galileo Edit[edit]

Hi, I noticed you removed my citation of Galileo's private letter recanting Heliocentrism because you said it "seeks to imply this was really his belief" (or something like that). I'm not sure what the problem is with that though. If private correspondence does not reflect Galileo's beliefs, then what does? Or are you suggesting that, since Galileo was blind, the writer took advantage of him to falsely attribute a recantation of Heliocentrism? Looking forward to your response. GarretKadeDupre (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

New talk goes at the end. And, this is the same problem you had with Einstein. Remember? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

not in the ref given[edit]

Can you please explain why you reverted this change to Surveys of scientists' views on climate change? —Doug Bell 01:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The clue is not in the ref given William M. Connolley (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the reference? What precisely is it that isn't in the reference? To save some back-and-forth time, I'll answer that for you. Nothing. There was nothing in the changes I made that wasn't in the reference. The changes I added were minimal and neutral. The entire article, on the other hand, tilts to one side, although not badly. It would certainly be improved by not being so selective in what it includes, and by removing prejudicial language. —Doug Bell 00:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same edit? I'm talking about this one William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that edit.

Here is the text I added:

categorizing 903 researchers (65.8%) as convinced by the evidence and 472 researchers (34.4%) as unconvinced by the evidence for ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change)

Here is the reference I supplied, which is part of the study the section is discussing, and is linked to from the study.

How is what I added not in the ref given? —Doug Bell 00:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you miss, or your edit miss-states, the point of that PNAS paper. Anderegg et al were actively mining for a large set of "unconvinceds" - that 35% of unconvinced researchers is not the result of their study, it's part of the design. They looked at mainstream-critical public statements to actively find those people (and they looked at a few mainstream-supporting statements to find "convinced" experts). Then they looked at the relative levels of expertise of the two groups, and found out that the hard-found pseudo-skeptics are not well represented in the literature, i.e. only very few of them have demonstrated expertise. Your edit does not reflect this point, it seems to sell the premise as a result. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you have to look at the whole edit in context. I also added an explanation following that excerpt above to the article:

Based on analysis of the publications by the researchers, the paper drew the following two conclusions

That puts the numbers in context. Since the criteria selected to quantify/qualify researchers were themselves arbitrarily chosen to produce the desired results, I think that's a pretty neutral statement to qualify the research. As you said, they were mining for "unconvinceds" as part of the design. They collected a large number of unconvinced, perhaps to dilute the prominence of the "well-represented" scientists among them. I'm not going to speculate on the researchers' motives, but I think my edit to the article at least counters the bias in how the findings are currently presented in the article. —Doug Bell 21:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

By "the bias in how the findings are currently presented in the article" I gather you mean compliance with weight and WP:PSCI policy. Trying to counter the bias inherent in the system isn't good, even if you feel a fringe viewpoint is being repressed. . dave souza, talk 21:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Doug, the experimental design was not "arbitrarily chosen to produce the desired results". As to "diluting" the prominence of well-represented scientists among the unconvinced: if you undilute the sample by removing those of lesser prominence, the number of unconvinced gets less. You can say there are some well-qualified scientists that are unconvinced (but like, what, three or four?), or you can say there thousands of self-alleged "scientists" (e.g., the Oregon Petition), but you don't get both: there are not thousands of well-qualified scientists who are "unconvinced". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What do the secondary reliable sources say? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What causes you to conclude that the experimental design was not arbitrary, and not tailored to match the data? (Tempting to expand on, but I won't.) There were several arbitrary values and cutoffs used in the study, and as was pointed out in Bodenstein's critique of the study, the criteria used to measure scientific "expertise" will naturally favor the majority consensus. Furthermore, the study only looked at researchers on either end of the advocacy scale, which tends to omit scientists with views towards the middle (i.e. agree with some aspects and conclusions of the IPCC, but not all.) That leads to an overstatement of the conclusion. All I was trying to do was to provide some context to how the results were determined.

As to "fringe viewpoint", that's not where I see the bias. The degree to which scientists agree starts to break down quickly as it is qualified in finer levels. The majority consensus among scientist that temperatures are warming and anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a contributing factor gets dressed up as the overwhelming majority of scientists agree with the assessment of the IPCC, which simply isn't the case. Even the studies listed in the article demonstrate that.

There is substantial disagreement on many aspects of climate science, even among contributors to the IPCC reports. The summary sentence at the top of the article overstates the consensus of the studies in the article. There are omissions and prejudicial language, not terrible as I said above, but undeniably present, that push the narrative of "97%" consensus. That overwhelming majority consensus applies to a significantly milder statement than what's contained in the IPCC reports.

All I'm looking for is a neutral representation of the surveys. —Doug Bell 00:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Mere assertion. Doubt appears to be your product, but for WP you need a reliable secondary source. As it is, the article gives equal validity to Cornwall Declarators and unknowns like Bodenstein. . . dave souza, talk 07:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind people talking here - I'm reading it - but what started off as a question from DB to me has now turned into a general discussion, and that really ought to be on the article talk page. So I'm going to copy all this there William M. Connolley (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account[edit]

Hi William! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I tried it, but your servers seem to be down William M. Connolley (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Strange, that's new to me. Please try again and let me know. Thanks! :-) Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Works now; not sure what was wrong before.
While you're here... having done the unify thing, it tells me that "William M. Connolley" exists on, e.g., But I have no memory of that, and there's no email registered, and no edits either. Any idea? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I've usurped all local accounts which had no visible edits. Four accounts are left though of which three hold long-time references to your enwiki account on their respective user pages. Have you tried some former passwords on Special:MergeAccount? If you cannot merge these account, please let me know so that I can ask a developer to insert your enwiki email address to these accounts which will enable you to reset your password there. Unfortunately, the enwikiquote account without reference to your enwiki account might get lost during SUL finalization till April 2015. But it only contains one single edit. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll take a look at those other ones, which do look like accounts I used to use, and see if I can find passwords William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Spencer (author)[edit]

There is now a heated debate about the section which I started and which you supported. Please participate.--Broter (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment[edit]

Given your activity on the WP: Revert_only_when_necessary essay page, I'd invite your input on a recent edit of that essay that was, very ironically, instantly reverted. See the talk page [33] if you wish to participate.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tkuvho (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Regarding this diff, would you be willing to explain the logic behind the use of GW vs CC to the editor (who's a student in a class I'm helping out with). I could do it, but I honestly don't remember why we do things the way we do (though I remember it made sense last time I saw it come up). Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Think this diff is the one intended, the problem went beyond that particular edit so I've made a quick adjustment. As a layman, my understanding is that global warming refers to the current climate change as affected by human influences, without these influences we'd probably have the continuing long term climate change of slow cooling towards an ice age in a few thousand years. While CC can cover both, GW is more specific and so useful for topics dealing with AGW. Frank Luntz might disagree about the usefulness of that distinction. . . dave souza, talk 18:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. In the outside world, whether you call it GW or CC or something else is ambiguous and shifting; within wiki we've picked GW to be the current stuff, and CC to be the long-term and in-general stuff, as Dave says. Or, indeed, as the articles themselves say... William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that's all? I seem to remember a long convoluted discussion at some point, or maybe several point in the last decade. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there have been many long convoluted discussions over the years... William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── FYI, some of the collected discussions are here, which is incomplete. Feel free to add if you find worthy additions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Per Luntz, there was a deliberate neocon attempt to paint GW as CC as it would seem less threatening, and I've a vague memory of reading about an earlier move by the same political group to move from the GW to the CC labelling. However, for our articles GW is more clearly about what's happening now, and CC usefully covers the generic case. Dunno if you've noticed the recent twist on this, Senator Jim Inhofe endorsed an amendment proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, "Climate change is real and not a hoax", which passed 98–1. Inhofe clarified his view that "Climate is changing and climate has always changed and always will. There is archaeological evidence of that, there is biblical evidence of that, there is historical evidence of that", but added that "there are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate." Dina Cappiello, The Associated Press (21 January 2015). "Senate says climate change real, but doesn't agree on cause". Dayton Daily News. Retrieved 26 January 2015.  . . . dave souza, talk 22:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@NAEG: you have been busy :-). Dave: there's another thread, wherein the nutters try to claim that renaming GW to CC is an admission of defeat. Or something; logic isn't their strong suit. As for CC-is-real-C-has-always-C, that's just std.childishness that, again, the usual nutters are fond of William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I vaguely recall that the deniers preferred CC so they could claim that climate cools as well, so that the current warming becomes just the current trend. Note that Inhofe did not agree that warming is real, only that change is real. And his statement about "people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate" is probably read by some as imputing arrogance to those who say humans have changed the climate. So the Senate resolution does not signal any real advance of acceptance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Pedantic foot note: by July 2003 Inhofe was proclaiming that "catastrophic global warming is a hoax" and "manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people", by Oct 2004 he'd rephrased that as ""Global warming is the greatest hoax..." etc. and it's only the last variant that he's backed away from. As you'll know, he's now chair of the US Environment and Public Works senate committee, looks like fun ahead. Aside to WMC: am reading Kunzig and Broekner's Fixing Climate which has interesting stuff about global cooling: seen that? . . dave souza, talk 12:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Franz Senn Hut[edit]

Hi William, I've just checked the current article on German Wikipedia and it actually says einfache Gehzeit which means something like "the time in which the ascent may be easily achieved". It does not refer to the level of difficulty as you picked up. So I've removed the other occurrences of "easy" and added a clarifying footnote. Gruß, --Bermicourt (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to add in light of the previous section as well... there has been a bit of a tendency to question the notability of Alpine huts which I think can be addressed by simply adding suitable references from the literature and web - there are plenty. Feel free to support that. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I've actually done the Ruderhofspitze ( and while it doesn't really have any technical difficulties, its not something you'd want to call "easy" to people who might misunderstand you. Anyway, you've found the original meaning of the word now so that's good.
Notability: yes, its a fair point. But one better discussed by discussion that rude drive-by tagging by people with nothing better to do in order to inflate their edit count William M. Connolley (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Lol. I know what you mean! --Bermicourt (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
As a native German speaker, I'm quite sure that "einfache Gehzeit" means "time for a one-way trip", with no implication on that being particularly easy to achieve. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Innsbrucker Hütte[edit]

What's going on with this article? Twice I have raised good-faith tags to delete it for legitimate reasons, and twice you have removed the tag contrary to WP policy. You even blanked the section on your talk page. Let me make this clear one last time: as the author you MUST NOT remove the deletion tag from your article. If you disagree, and can provide some references to back up your position, then follow the process to dispute it. I look forward to a constructive discussion about the issues, without the person attacks.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

See the section above William M. Connolley (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's just confusing. The section above is about a completely different article. It also concludes that the best approach is to discuss the issues, which is exactly what I have been trying to do. So to bring the conversation onto a more objective level, let's move it to the article's Talk page. Tell me there why you think the subject is Notable, even without the benefit of any references - if you want some time to gather those then just say so. But give me something to go on because otherwise all I have is what is written in the article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
discuss the issues - yes. Not drive-by tagging William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)