User talk:William M. Connolley

File:800px-non-Admin JollyRoger.GIF The flag of the former admin!

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. User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats Proverb for the year: if you have nothing new to say, don't say it. 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 Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions • Block log • Count watchers • Edit count • WikiBlame

The Holding Pen

Ocean acidification

A reader writes:

"Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments.[31] This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with moderate (and potentially beneficial) implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean.[32]"

I'm not sure, but it sounds odd. You can beat me to it if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like it was User:Plumbago [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Correctly deduced. It was me. It may not be worded well, but I think that it's factually correct. Basically, as well as its other effects on living organisms in the ocean, acidification is also expected (see the references) to dissolve existing carbonate sediments in the oceans. This will increase the ocean's alkalinity inventory, which in turn increases its buffering capacity for CO2 - that is, the ocean can then store more CO2 at equilibrium than before (i.e. the "implications for climate change" alluded to). As a sidenote, it also means that palaeo scientists interested in inferring the past from carbonate sediment records will have to work fast (well, centuries) before their subject matter dissolves away! Hope this helps. --PLUMBAGO 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Double diffusive convection

Bit surprised there is no article on DDC? Has the term gone out of fashion? It was half the course in "Buoyancy in Fluid Dynamics" when I did Part III 23 years ago. --BozMo talk 13:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember is was a nice demo on the fluid dynamics summer school DAMPT ran. Not sure I would still be confident of writing it up 10:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I might have to suggest it to Huppert or someone. --BozMo talk 10:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If one of you two makes a stub, I'd be willing to read up on it and make it a longer stub. Awickert (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What a kind offer. I have started here: Double diffusive convection--BozMo talk 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All right - I'll get to it (eventually). It's on my to-do list. Awickert (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

CSS site

Forgive the quick note, but I happened to notice the comments at the top about CSS, and some places to learn about it. I second the site mentioned, but also take a look at the CSS Zen Garden at [[2]] - it's a great place to quickly see what CSS is capable of doing. Basically, it's a site where people take the exact same HMTL page, but use a different .css file, and completely change how the page looks. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Current

Your ArbCom userpage comment

Need to finish this off
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know that you were disappointed by the conduct and results of the case, and I'm sure you're aware that I voted against most of the remedies proposed against you and share some portion of your feelings. However, I respectfully suggest that calling one of my colleagues a "fool" on-wiki is not helpful. We all accept a great deal of criticism and commentary as par for the course in connection with serving as arbitrators—just as you have as one of our active administrators on contentious topics—but I always still think it's better, and more effective, to stay away from the overtly ad hominem. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Ah, you've found it :-). And while you are here, thank you for your votes. I am indeed deeply disappointed by the conduct of your colleagues; and I regret having to disappoint you now. Arbcomm are big boys and girls and can cope with some discrete criticism of their actions. Moreover, you (arbcomm, I can't recall how you personally voted) established the principle that users are entitled to insult a blocking admin as much as they please on their own talk pages; I'm sure you'll extend a similar privilidge to those who desysop people William M. Connolley (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I should add that there is a diff there justifying the appelation. I regard the extensive comment re the cabal as being grotesquely stupid. However this carries no implication that is the most foolish thing that particular arb has done in this case William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Nobody is entitled to insult anyone here William. If arbcom has passed some sort of rule the "entitles" users to insult a blocking admin(and I seriously doubt they have) then I would use good sense and ignore such an "entitlement" as unproductive. Chillum 14:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Really? Are you certain of your ground here? Suppose someone were to call the arbcomm "liars" or "lying bastards" or "ridiculous" or "devious" or compare them to a third world Junta? Do you think that would be actionable? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I think it would be rather poor judgment. Just because something is not actionable does not make it an entitlement. Chillum 17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC) If you mean the arbcomm's decision permitting this, I entirely agree with you. However, until they are wise enough to revoke it (and alas I fear we will have rather a long time to wait for wisdom from them) we are stuck with it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I haven't looked to see which arb was accused of being a "fool," but am curious how would "Stephen Bain should not be entrusted with anything more valuable than a ball of string" would be received. I'd like to know before I say that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Ditto
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is available in full at the link above. As a result of this case: The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles substantially about cold fusion, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of three months from Wikipedia, and for a period of one year from the cold fusion article. These bans are to run concurrently. Additionally, Abd is prohibited from participating in discussions about disputes in which he is not one of the originating parties, including but not limited to article talk pages, user talk pages, administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution, however not including votes or comments at polls. Abd is also admonished for edit-warring on Arbitration case pages, engaging in personal attacks, and failing to support allegations of misconduct. William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrator rights are revoked. He may apply for their reinstatement at any time via Requests for Adminship or appeal to the Committee. William M. Connolley is also admonished for edit warring on Arbitration case pages. Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded not to edit war and to avoid personal attacks. The community is urged to engage in a policy discussion and clarify under what circumstances, if any, an administrator may issue topic or page bans without seeking consensus for them, and how such bans may be appealed. This discussion should come to a consensus within one month of this notice. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I'm am sorry to see that your adminship has been revoked. I believe that our circumstances are similar in a way. I too was once an admin and lost my tools mainly due to conflicts on articles related to the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. I know that the vast majority of my content creation and all my FA's were done after I was desysopped...with that said I am hoping that we can still look forward to your wisdom and guidance in those areas you have so instrumental in and that you will continue to help us build as reliable a reference base as we can achieve. Best wishes to you!--MONGO 03:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Not a great day for Arbcom or the project. However I doubt you will take it too personally. --BozMo talk 08:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks to you both William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I ask that you please accept my nomination to regain your administrative rights at RFA. 99.191.73.2 (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Vair tempting. I fear that was the wrong forum. I shall ponder this matter William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry to hear this, William. You were a good admin. I hope you won't let it bother you. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I rarely comment in RFA, nor do I monitor them. If you ever decide to be re-nominated, I would appreciate a courtesy notice as otherwise I will almost certainly not be aware of the discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Interesting [3] Hardly surprising that arbcom wants to keep their mess as far from view as possible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) Weird. Who is it supposed to be a courtesy too? I've asked C User_talk:Carcharoth#CB. Certainly it seems to me that the people most embarassed by that page would be arbcomm William M. Connolley (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Woonpton expressed a desire for blanking, both during the case and at WT:AC/N. As I understand it, she feels that having Abd's allegations about cabal-ism visible were and are slandering her and everyone else smeared by the accusations. EdChem (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC) You might also want to look at User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke#Thanks_and_question for more on Woonpton's view, as well as the thread immediately above it. EdChem (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC) This giant spwaling ill-managed case now extends to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Courtesy_blanking_of_case_pages. Sigh - I thought they had finally managed to finish this case, but not, they drag its stinking corpse out of the grave and prop it up again William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Not sure which section is best to post this, but I would be delighted to renominate you at RFA or support you if you decide to run. Stifle (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fools and their foolishness

Yes, it needs finishing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Regarding [4], you are quite welcome to raise any of your concerns or points on my talk page. I'm quite open to constructive feedback, even if it's harsh or drastically opposed to my views or actions. I even promise not to seek a block if you call me a fool. However, if you call me Mungojerrie or make me listen to "Memory", it's war! :-) (If you prefer to keep everything together, we could easily have the same discussion at User talk:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff.) Vassyana (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I'll decline your permission to call you a fool on your page, though, since I think that would be wrong. The "Misc" page needs some more work when I hve a spare moment William M. Connolley (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I am mostly interested in what you find most troublesome about my statement and what harm you think it would bring if taken to heart. It is entirely possible that there is a misunderstanding or that I simply communicated ineffectively. Even if it is the simple fact that our opinions are on opposite poles, it would be valuable for me to better understand your concerns. I'll keep an eye on the subpage and remain available for discussion. Vassyana (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I thought some of your decisions were described as foolishness. This is not in my view the same as calling you a fool. Everyone makes foolish decisions and sometimes takes foolish actions. Criticising an action as foolish IMHO is not a personal attack whereas calling the actor a fool is. As for the troublesome statement the problem I have with it is "Fernseeds and elephants" (roughly that you are staring out of the window discerning a fern seed in the distance when there is an elephant in the room, to paraphrase CS Lewis) you say "there is certainly a kernel of truth to the concerns in that there is a certain indentifiable group that appears to act in a mutually supporting fashion" completely misses the bigger problem which drives people with nothing more in common than a basic understanding of science to "appear to act in concert". On most ordinary differentiators (religion, politics, hair length, social class?) I am opposites to WMC (we do both have kids I think) but he has a scientific training of sorts and D Phil in maths from the one of the better universities in the UK and a background in scientific modelling, and I have good scientific training, a PhD from the better place and a background in scientific modelling and that means when faced with utter rubbish (someone who thinks that Global Warming violates the second law of thermodynamics) we tend to agree. So perhaps it is a concern to you that there is an appearance of a Cabal but there is also a concern in the appearance of idiocy on some of the groups who attack. You say "commonly overwhelmed by involved opinion and regularly featured involved editors !voting and/or commenting as though they were uninvolved users providing an opinion" but when I look I see five or six identifiable anti WMC anti science editors who never miss an opportunity to express a view and perhaps fifty scientifically trained editors who each take a turn for a few months patiently explaining to these people and then move back to the middle of the penguin huddle. A lot of the antogonists I am sure are 14 year olds who don't understand the limits of their knowledge. Some are confident readers of trashy news papers or have strong political motivation. The idea though that this is an issue about the editors who protect WP as is as silly as saying that wikiproject medicine is a "troubling conspiracy" of wikipedians who are medically qualified trying to keep wikipedia in line with established medical practice. --BozMo talk 19:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Based on your response, I'm going to venture that a failure on my part to communicate more clearly is a principal culprit. Let me try restating my point: There's no evil Cabal. There is a group of like-minded editors that support each other. This is usually beneficial to Wikipedia. The main harmful activity I see is involved* editors overwhelming content and conduct discussions on noticeboards, especially when involved* editors present their opinions as though they were uninvolved parties and/or generate the false appearance of outside consensus. (*"Involved" defined simply as actually previously or currently involved in content disputes within the topic area that are directly relevant to the discussion or substantial conflict with the main involved parties.) A complete rejection of all concerns about "clique editing" is inappropriate in the face of this very real problem. I will certainly agree that this is at least as much of a problem with pseudoscience/fringe editors as with skeptical/scientific editors. Indeed, I say it is more of a problem with the former than the latter, if for no other reason than fringe editors' preferred versions are usually inaccurate presentations with far worse NPOV violations and gaming the content noticeboards allows them set policy precedents grossly at odds with the principles invoked. I hope this better clarifies what I was trying to express (obviously with limited success and much misunderstanding). If I can further clarify, or if you or anyone else wishes to discuss it further, I remain available to do so. Vassyana (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks Bozmo. I've cut my hair recently so we may not be too far opposed on that aspect (unless you now have long hair). As to expanding the page - that will come in time. I'm glad you (V) are watching but I'm afraid I've grown rather discouraged by arbcomms ability to learn, so I won't be in a hurry. That page is mostly for me, though you are free to ask questions there if you like and I'll probbaly answer. In the meantime, on the "fools" issue, User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/On_civility#Misc_arbcomm-y_stuff refers William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Everyone does at least two foolish things a day, but only some of us can do six impossible things before breakfast. Verbal chat 20:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Second BozMo. A clear description of the situation. My hair is short, my Dr. rer. nat. is from one of the better German universities, and I represent the "no kids" demography. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I just found this

Oh look: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/web-iquette-for-climate-discussions/ Isn't that good? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

He used web-iquette for medical discussions as a guide. That reminds me of How Doctors Think which is a great work on how brilliant, well trained, experienced people can get things wrong every day. I wonder if there is a way to do the same thing. Ignignot (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Pole shift analysis Mediation request

I have offered my services as a mediator for the Pole shift analysis mediation request. As you have probably seen, discussion is currently undergoing at the talk page and your input would be appreciated before we go any further. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wondring aloud

I have to wonder if there isn't some deliberate foot dragging, given sentiments previously expressed by Arbcom and other insiders. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Um. I missed the Raul stuff in August and now feel guilty about not expressing my sympathy (literally in this case :-(). Old score settling I suspect William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What Raul stuff in Aug? Email if you prefer. --BozMo talk 07:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing secret, just not common knowledge. It is off on some arbcomm-y type page; Raul dropping CU tools; I'd find the link except someone watching can probably find it quicker William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Raul654 -Atmoz (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You have mail

Please check your e-mail. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that was pretty subtle of you. Has no-one told you this is supposed to be a *sekret* cabal? I'll send you the decoder ring William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally - for anyone else - I read my email as obsessively as I edit wiki, so there is no need to tell me William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I have a free section - let me point all to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#RFC.3F which has got rather buried under the dross. I can't see any way of avoiding this - it is clear the edit war will erupt as soon as the protection is removed. Unless we aim for user RFC's on some of the more pointless and disruptive folk. Thoughts? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Atmospheric soot (of more than one kind :-)

I've got enough to get into without getting into this (I see "the emails!!!" as bs), but will comment...

Based on vast knowledge of scattered info-fragments pooled in brain from leaving cableTV playing in background ... I'd say there's some cooling arising from "atmospheric soot" ... and we could just encourage China to burn more and dirtier coal ... to "solve" global warming problem ... but that "solution" is problematic. ;-) Yet cooling from atmospheric particulates (including incompletely gaseous male cow farts) may appear (e.g, to bs consumers) to complicate the evidence of warming. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this is the Superfreakonomics heresey William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean the Discovery channel was wrong!!! (lol) Anyway ... I see you got your bit back. I'd like your flag. Do you have a Steward friend who'd make me an admin for ten seconds (the length of some blocks I've seen lately :) ... then I can fly that flag. So cool. (Um, not globally, just cool) ... Silly mood at 6 AM and not slept yet ... Don't forget about that 10-second admin thing. In any case, best of luck in the election (won't tell you how I voted, but, did I mention I liked your flag? lol) Happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• PS On a more serious note, since the issue of particulates from burning coal still rang rather true in my neural net ... I needed to find this on brown cloud particulates in Asia ... which warm the air, but still cool the ground. lol Still pondering that .. but wouldn't have found that article without this light holiday exchange. Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Madiera m'dear (or Dundee Cake)

Ref BLP and the thread I contributed to a few weeks ago and lost. No not L. It was stuff like [5]. I think this crosses the line into giving credence to claims of victimisation and people could draw their own conclusions without it. But it has been edit-warred loads of times, even though it should have been conceded. You I think reverted in on a sock basis so I should probably argue it with Kim but he'll find it here too. --BozMo talk 20:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that one? I thought it was the smoking stuff. That one I would argue is accurate. Then there is the fine line of "should it be included?", which I agree that reasonable people (as well as a fair number of unreasonable people) could disagree about William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the only one but the individual was the reference to food. Unfortunately he always reminds me of a colleague in Francophone Africa who menioned his mother was a Sewer, pronounced the wrong way. Anyway on this one I do not doubt that these fine people said such a thing in the editorial part of their website, so I agree it is accurate as their opinion, and they may well be sufficiently expert (you would know). But in my view it almost becomes the opposite of damning with faint praise (exonerating with weak criticism) if we trawl around for this sort of thing when there are much heavier criticisms than condemnation on a blog. I am happy to disagree with you about it (I agree it is fine judgement) and I really don't want to get into BLP. But directionally when I do I am going to argue for reducing borderline criticism on asthetic as much as policy grounds. --BozMo talk 21:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. When I said "accurate" I meant, what they said is a good descripton of reality William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not in a position to disagree with you, certainly. But as you say that's not grounds for inclusion under house rules. --BozMo talk 22:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

British libel laws...

...much as I despise them, [6] might be a decent application for them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. Better not to dignify him with the attention and walk away. --BozMo talk 18:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not passing jusgement on this either way. I just wanted to draw it to your attention.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There are now many angry e-mails arriving at info@wikimedia.org, presumably from readers of that column. Here's how I'm answering some of them (reproducing this here because it may help other OTRS volunteers):

Thank you for contacting us with your concern.

Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia (as explained at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction>), and so anyone may edit its articles. Its policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias, as is discussed extensively at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV>.

However, all matters relating to article content and project administration are not controlled by a central authority, but are decided through discussion and consensus of all collaborators. The nonprofit Wikipedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, does not intervene in the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia, does not make decisions about the content of articles or about administrative actions, and normally takes no stance in disputes about Wikipedia content or administration.

There are several tens of thousands of contributors and more than a thousand administrators on the English Wikipedia alone, which normally ensures that no single editor or administrator can exert a commanding influence over the project or any particular aspect of it. There are also often disputes about content or administrative policy, but Wikipedia has solid procedures to resolve disputes and to make sure that every contested action, including the deletion of articles or the blocking of contributors, is subject to review in a community discussion or by an independent Arbitration Committee (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee>).

I hope that this addresses your concern.

It might be helpful if you wrote some statement onwiki to which these people could be directed to hear your side of the story.  Sandstein  21:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It might also help if you included text in your reply that the independent Arbitration Committee has recently removed the administrative rights of William M. Connolley as he "misused his administrator tools by acting while involved" as evidence of the mentioned solid procedures in place to review contested actions. Uncle uncle uncle 02:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be brave... if anyone external actually looks and finds the way it was done that could be rather embarrassing for Arbcom? --BozMo talk 08:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Gosh thanks. I didn't know anyone cared. I guess I'd better read the thing before mocking it. I notice he complains about my 500 deletions. [7] says he is correct but [8] says most of them are b*gg*r all to do with wiki. More later William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to engage Solomon would constitute a Rule 5 violation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

For the moment, the answer is http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/12/i_am_all_powerful_part_2.php (I don't see why I shouldn't get some blog traffic out of this :-). If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask. I'll put the conclusion here for convenience: "Conclusion: a rather dull article by Beany. Nothing new, and he hasn't done his homework properly." William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me make sure I have this straight: your deletion of Hilery clintin was not done at the behest of the pro-AGW orthodoxy at RealClimate? MastCell ^Talk 23:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the many evil acts which made arbcomm stomp on me. You see, crime never pays William M. Connolley (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm absolutely gobsmacked William. The EEML is small beer compared with your realclimate.org team. --Martin (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but we took care never to leak our extensive off-wiki collaboration William M. Connolley (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Alas, it is so. --Martin (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

t:GW

I replied on my page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbcomm result

I should comment, although there is little to say: Wikipedia:ACE2009 says it all. My claim to fame is having the lowest "neutral" count of the list. But also the lowest % of all the non-wacko candidates :-(. But my thanks to all who supported me William M. Connolley (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, yes, I voted for you — despite your complete lack of nuance with respect to atmospheric soot. :-) (I am smiling, but it is still an interesting idea that the "brown cloud" of Asia, both increases global warming, while cooling the ground). (Not a joke. See the nsf.gov article.) Now, I've spent zero time thinking about this ... but my rhetorical matrix probability calculations says there is something in that fact which has not been fully explored — at least from the perspective of countering the email bullshit shouting. lol Anyway, Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely odd. Aerosol usually contributes cooling. I'm not sure why this bit makes for warming William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol, you're not paying attention. It's the brown particulates (see: "Brown Cloud") ... that absorb heat, increasing atmospheric warming ... while also cutting off light to the ground, making it cooler.

P.S., I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that I've acknowledged on my user talk to having voted for both Jehochman and William M. Connolley. (I feel comfortable amidst the disreputable. ;-) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, instead of viewing the result as "the lowest of the non wacko candidates" you could view it as "the highest of the wacko candidates". ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Lar, you're such a class act. As for the election itself the outcome could have been much worse. There were a few "non-wacko" candidates who could have done major damage but thankfully weren't elected. The dearth of good candidates was a problem but I'm not too unhappy with the result. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Cla68 wasn't elected which is a terrible shame, but other than that it's not too bad an election, I suppose. SirFozzie, Kirill, and Steve Smith being elected are all quite awesome outcomes. And of course, WMC not being elected is a vast relief for many voters, apparently. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Cla86 not being elected was one of the candidates Boris (and I) were referring to William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Non wacko? Agreed. Very non wacko. He's eminently sane, chock full of the right ideas, and the community badly messed up in not electing him. Or perhaps that wasn't quite what you meant? ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your misleading summary of an edit to Hockey stick controversy

You gave a misleading summary of an edit to Hockey stick controversy. I reverted your change. I will revert further changes that have misleading summaries.

Also, the quote that I added was to replace misleading text. If you want to delete the quote, you should replace it with something that is not misleading. It looks to me like you are trying to bias the article. I suggest that you read WP:NPOV.

AlfBit (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My edit summary was accurate. I've read WP:NPOV William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I thought you might have an interest in the new policy being considered. I just came across this now and thought maybe sharing it with others would get the word out. If not interested, igrore please. Hope you are well, happy holidays, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a really bad idea to me William M. Connolley (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest allegations

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:William_M._Connolley_and_Global_Warming. User:RoyBoy thinks it's better to take this seriously and investigate than to just blow it off. I think I see his point. --TS 00:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've responded there William M. Connolley (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(By the way, I'm a big fan of "mocking." :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So what happens when your grant money runs out? Will you find a new myth to hype? Or will Ms. Kerry just ship another crate of cash? You see it unraveling, don't you? We do. 64.53.136.29 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Mocking that remark would be like shooting mock fish in a mockery barrel. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As if the money they pay us would fit on crates! It's all electronic transfers, and a good thing that they finally moved to 64 bit architecture - it got tedious to keep track of all that individual 4 billion payments! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Tree Worm!!!

Merry Christmas Tree Worm!!! Grundle2600 (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And Merry Christmas to you too. I've smallified it a touch, though William M. Connolley (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you, too. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Its a nice picture - and Merry Christmas to both of you. (and all the lurkers :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to All William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kim. Merry Christmas to you too. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good fight

It seems odd that having an expertise in a field makes one have a COI in the eyes of some. I'm glad that the COI case against you was closed and was heartened that sanity prevailed. Even though I voted for you, I'm also a bit glad that you did not become a Arbitrator b/c I think you are needed more on content patrol and improvement. I know from experience that being on ArbCom is a soul-sucking task with hardly any rewards but a hell of a lot of unnecessary drama. All it did for me was burn me out for a long time. I don't want that to happen to you. Keep up the great work! If you collected barnstars, I would make this one. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 22:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

By golly I remember you from the old days. Thanks for showing up and being kind; it is good to know that good people care William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

'Tis the season of giving

		Home-Made Barnstar
		This barnstar is given in appreciation of William M. Connolley for his resilience in the face of those who would use him as a whipping-post for all their climatological gripes, his tolerably good humor in spite of these unending ordeals, and his keen wit that makes him one of the most effective Wikipedians with whom I have worked. Awickert (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to you. Happy festive period (probably the correct greeting between Christmas and the new year) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, and please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ATren

Corrected a typo here; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_William_M._Connolley but surprised you had him down as a minor skeptic. He defends skeptics, sure. But not sure he is. --BozMo talk 16:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think ATren's edits speak for themselves. Meanwhile, I've removed a mistaken ' from Kim's section so I hope he'll forgive me. Since you're here, thanks for sorting out 74.117.60.148 - I did notice William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

bas email address

Still here http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/contact.html might want to fix that --BozMo talk 10:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. That poor old site badly needs some maintenance. I used to have a geocities account once, you know William M. Connolley (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

block templates

If I did them more often I would work out how to sign them...--BozMo talk 13:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

More blood on the floor, that's what we want (there was an arbcomm candidate from 2008 who promised blood on the floor; I voted against, pointing out that his block record didn't support that. I think he withdrew) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELSEWHERE

Criticism of the United Nations is a particularly rubbish example where there is loads of text attributed to a non-notable book by Dore Gold. There are loads of these, most people do not run as tight a ship as GW... not that that proves anything. By the way have you seen some of Britanica's supplementory articles [9] etc --BozMo talk 23:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, that is something of a hole below the waterline for EB's cred. As for the rest, it will have to await the morning. I just read the SignPost on me, BTW William M. Connolley (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Another day: so, (a) that article doesn't look too great either and (b) if so, why not add it to Criticism of IPCC AR4 instead? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a coffee. I wasn't talking about the glacier bit (which might be ok for AR4. I was looking at [10] and thinking about adding to the criticism section something like: The IPCC has been criticised by a small counter-group called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), including Monckton, Patrick Michaels which issued a report edited by Fred Singer in March 2008 yesterday arguing that recent climate change stems from natural causes. --BozMo talk 21:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. I thought we were talking about the glacier bit. Are you talking about the glacier bit on the IPCC talk page, where you're agreeing with MN? I presume so, since his text is still sitting in the article. As for your text above, I disagree: if we want people ranting at the IPCC, I'm sure we can get quotes from people like Imhofe and so on; why should we want to use something far less well known like NIPCC? The only reason to do so would be if the NIPCC was in some way more science-based than the Imhofes of the world. I doubt that. Are you asserting it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Two many things to answer here (1) I edited in the section headed "Including criticism from NIPCC" in reply to cmts on that. I didn't go near the glacier discussion (I am leaning to AR4 for that, but it depends on which papers said what and I haven't read them all). You made comments in that thread presumably on my topic? Nutley's Washington Post article is on that topic (2) So on including NIPCC, you need to drop concerns of moral justice. What's the IPCC got to do with Science? Or rather why is science based a sensible test for including critics in their article? My view on inclusion is based on needing minimum notability as a hygiene factor and then getting weight from being an opposition group which gives a rarity value. --BozMo talk 22:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) Then I think there is confusion. It looks like you're suggesting adding the glacier stuff. Both Kim and I have read you that way. (2) You've misunderstood. I'm not suggesting sci-only crit. I'm saying that the only way to get the NIPCC crit in as non-sci crit; and in that case it fails on the grounds that plenty more notable folk have said much the same William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You need two coffees. Kim looks like he reads it as NIPCC. Anyway why do we not include any critic in Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Criticism_of_IPCC saying GW is not A. All the criticism is micro we should include some entities who broad brush dispute or hate IPCC on principle, since some exist and at least one is notable. If there are notable "we hate" organisations and we do not mention any of them it looks like censorship and damning with faint praise is a better approach --BozMo talk 22:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning is fair, as long as it is short and merely descriptive of the fact that such organizations exist. Something on the lines of what you proposed before. As i've just written on the talk, i agree that all of this is micro-crit. And that the focus in a criticism section should be primarily on the methodology and the process - i'm not well-versed in the policy parts of this, but i believe that there has been a lot of debate over the setup of the IPCC, as well as the process in generating the SPM's. For instance the 2001 NAS panel "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions"[11] was setup to examine if the SPM process worked, and whether the SPM was a good reflection of the full report. And as mentioned on talk, i believe the newer "the IPCC has outlived its mission" critique should probably be mentioned. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC) [there would probably be something in this[12] or this[13] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for starting a discussion here after reverting. This sort of consensus-building is exactly what these articles need. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just want to say..

Hi WMC, I just want to wish you and you lurkers a wonderful 2010! Happy New Year and Happy Editing to all. Thanks for all your kindness during my time of stress. It was very much appreciated especially the humor you brought.  :) To a Happy & healthy year, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and the best to you as well (and all my lurkers too). ps: thanks for TS for the LS fallout cleanup; carbon copies are a bit dull] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Transferred epithet or Tourettes?

Either way the words "and pointless" could be removed from [14] without diluting the meaning at all so, given the words are likely to irritate people, I suggest a strikeout. --BozMo talk 19:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen your talk page. Please don't be coy. This is nothing to do with ZP5. He will no doubt be pleased to learn that he isn't the only pointless thing on wikipedia, when you convey this response to his message back to him William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Coy? Who knows, but not unobservant in this case. I had spotted that he had not even edited the section concerned, and was not the target. So back to my message; why do you include "and pointless" in a inappropriate place in the sentence where it adds nothing. Transferred epithet or Tourettes? Dropping "pointless" around anyway you like is hardly constructive... --BozMo talk 20:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This section is trying to solve an insoluble and pointless problem is presumably the text you mean. I said that because I think it is both insoluble and pointless. Both points seem quite relevant to me. The problem is pointless because we simply don't need the definitions proposed. So I reject your unsupported allegation of "inappropriate", until you can support it. But I'm really baffled as to why you're spending time on this. I can't believe that you are effectively proposing a ban on the use of the word "pointless" on wiki talk pages, but that appears to be the logical conclusion of your suggestion William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(to why I spend time on this) I think a little effort (including by you) trying to word things less aggressively will reduce time in the long term dealing with people who feel slighted or feel others have been slighted. Stitch in time and all that. (to this thread) You have a vast array of options for communicating your feeling that the thread concerned was unlikely to be productive. But you know enough maths to realise that semantically claiming a problem is "insoluble and pointless" is redundantly repetitive. "Insoluble" is perfectly adequate and "pointless" is at best a transferred epithet for its solution being pointless (as in "homeward plods his weary way") and at worst just sprinkling in a negative word for the sake of it. Fine in communication with me but not ideal on an article where we are trying to clean up the atmosphere. --BozMo talk 20:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Mathematically, yes. But (a) this isn't maths and (b) that's only relevant if people accept both my claims. Just possibly (rare I know) people have been known to disagree with me. What about the case of someone who says: no, it isn't insoluble, but I agree it is pointless? Your argument falls apart William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good try but no. The only real reason why the thread (not the problem) may be "pointless" is because of the problem's inherent insolvability. If we could invent a rigorous basis for judging what is subjective at present it would not be pointless at all. You had no separate meaning with the word pointless, or at the very least you made none. It was gratuitous. --BozMo talk 22:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a very good try and no. The thread is pointless, regardless of its solvability, because it is a problem we simply don't need to solve (unless you really think there is a queue of synthesis reports sitting waiting for assessement as to their objective scientific qualities) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Post hoc you can try this but if you added the word "pointless" to try to communicate this aspect which you never mentioned anywhere there and which is entirely obscure (viz the point that there are no other synths available) your crime was worse; you did no service to anyone by failing to actually say so in the thread. It would have been preferable to post a note saying "before we discuss this further, are there any synthesis reports which we are not including?". --BozMo talk 22:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, this isn't post-hoc, this is the reasonning I used at the time. You are, if you like, welcome to argue that my meaning was unclear: and I will freely admit that at least one person failed to understand it: but most of your messages above are now seen to be wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I will certainly keep "(to why I spend time on this) I think a little effort (including by you) trying to word things less aggressively will reduce time in the long term dealing with people who feel slighted or feel others have been slighted." On the rest if you are really prepared to claim you meant that, and in good faith you expected people to understand that meaning, I don't mind conceding it is a viable defence for the word serving a purpose. --BozMo talk 22:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, since I am indeed asserting that was my original intent, and also prepared to try to be a little less terse next time, I think we can declare that peace and understanding has browk out William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will leave IPCC to you too since no one seems interested in different senses of the word mandate. --BozMo talk 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No one seems interested in anything other than trying to hit someone over the head there really. I've taken a short break out of frustration. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for article probation enforcement against you

A request for the enforcement of article probation has been made concerning your editing of Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Request concerning User:William M Connolley. -- --mark nutley (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll want to get someone to help you fix that up; it is very badly broken William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Last Chance to go on Record

Since you've chosen not to respond on the appropriate page, I'll ask you one last time, yes or no, did you participate at the AfD for Edward Werner due to influence from Elonka? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already answered that. Now you get your turn: why do you have this vendetta against Elonka? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Spoonfeeding

I know it is a bit acrimonious over at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change right now, but could you please resist the urge to use edit summaries like this? I have been trying to get editors to focus on content and raise the tone of discussion, and that sort of thing really does not help. As a side point, <ref> tags are helpful to the presentation. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 01:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, fair comment. I'll try to restrain my bitter sarcasm in future William M. Connolley (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. While I am here, you dropped a period here. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your section header "Wacko alert?"

Hi please don't use word as Waco on other living persons as you do in this edit. And try to use real names, not «Wottsup» and other negative calling names (or do I misunderstand?). As far as I see this is just a way to try to get other people who you disagree with to get angry. Either way, thanks for the section and link. Nsaa (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)