Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:00, 3 March 2008

I'm fairly busy in the Real World at the moment. Expect delays here... or not. But it's my excuse anyway...

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

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here. 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.

The Holding Pen

Linda Hall editor

User:204.56.7.1 has been blocked four times in the last month for 3RR (once by you). He is now performing wholsale reversions without comment (see at Radio [1]) This user as you probably know, has a long history of refusing to collaborate. He ignored my talk page request. Any suggestions? --Blainster 20:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that 204. is Reddi. Reddi is limited to 1R per week. Establishing the connection past doubt is difficult; but the edit patterns are very similar. You could post a WP:RFCU. Or you could just list 204. on the 3RR page together with the note of Reddis arbcomm parole and see if that does any good. Or maybe I'll just block it... shall I? Oh go on, yes I will... William M. Connolley 21:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Reddimeter displays 8.5 on a scale from 0 to 10: Selection of topics. likes patents, likes templates. Only the tireless lamenting on article talk pages is missing. --Pjacobi 21:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reddi apparently back

... with another sockpuppet [2] KarlBunker 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no stopping him? I've blocked that one; if he persists, will semi it William M. Connolley 19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your query

Hi William, it's correct that we're not supposed to use wikis as sources (except in very limited circumstances, namely in the same way we'd use any self-published source), but I don't see how that would apply to the instrumental temperature record. We're allowed to use any primary, secondary, or tertiary source that's reliable. I don't know what kind of source the ITR is, but it seems to me something we ought to be using. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we are talking about here is to not repeat references already contained in sub-articles. I.e. when referencing the instrumental temperature record in global warming, it should be sufficient to Wikilink there, not to repeat the references over and over again. --Stephan Schulz 18:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the context. It's almost always better to repeat the references, unless the material is completely uncontentious, in which case you could simply link to the Wikipedia article and anyone who wants to know more can read that. But if the claims are "challenged or likely to be challenged," as the policy says, then it's better to supply citations even if they've been repeated elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that is compatible with your original reply, sorry. How can we cite ITR in this way if tertiary sources are forbidden? WP:OR sez Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source... All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources... Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). This, as written, would appear to imply that tertiary sources are forbidden. I would suggest that it needs to be re-written. William M. Connolley 18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see how this can work with WP:SUMMARY. For complex topics, it's easily possible to go multiple levels of recursion. Repeating all references will destroy the whole idea of using summaries. --Stephan Schulz 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though the wikilawyers would tell you thats only a guideline :-). It points you are History of the Yosemite area, which indeed is woefully unreferenced, by the absurd standards some are pushing. So I think WP:OR is miswritten, and needs revision William M. Connolley 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to see the specific example to understand what the issue is. But generally, tertiary sources are allowed if they're high quality; the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, would be allowed. The secondary/tertiary distinction can be a bit of a red herring that's best ignored: what matters is whether the source is a good one, and whether it's used correctly in the article. As for summary style, you summarize the contents of another article, but in summarizing, you presumably make a couple of claims, so these particular claims should be sourced. That doesn't mean you have to repeat every single source that's in the main article — just sources for the particular claims you're repeating. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thats what I would have thought. But I don't see how this is compatible with a literal reading of the OR policy, as quoted above. Its all very well to agree in friendly discussion with you that the policy is a red herring... but its not pleasant to have the policy quoted in unfriendly edit wars. If you want an example, then consider: For example, I could just write "John Adams was born in 1735," and leave it at that because that Wikipedia article SAYS he was born in 1735 SO IT MUST BE TRUE! Wrong. That is not how Wikipedia works, I'm afraid. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. How does that sound to you? William M. Connolley 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair point, the policy needs to be tweaked. At the moment, there's a discussion about whether V and NOR are to be merged into ATT, so I hope we can leave any tweaking until after that's decided. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure its a good idea to leave it, otherwise we'll get edits like this being done on the basis of over-zealous interpretation of the current policy William M. Connolley 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing the article adequately cites it sources? ~ UBeR 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When an article achieves FA status, the adequacy of sourcing is a major criteria. The article passed that hurdle a little while back and the quantity and quality of citations have improved even after that. Are there areas that could be improved? No doubt, but overall the article is adequately sourced and the current round of nitpicking is not helping to improve the article. Vsmith 01:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current

DVD

Hi William,

We are doing the yearly review/update on the schools DVD, but no one has done climate at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_CD_Selection/additions_and_updates. You kindly helped last time. Could you tell me if this list http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/index/subject.Geography.Climate_and_the_Weather.htm is still a reasonable basis and if any of them need updating (they are all a year old). Thanks --BozMo talk 07:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have looked. All of them should be updated; they are all watched so should all be safe in their state as of this second. There are many others that could be added; I got as far as:

Solar_cycle&oldid=193965428; Solar_variation&oldid=191284082; Maunder_Minimum&oldid=190905421; Little_Ice_Age&oldid=193107684; Albedo&oldid=192725396; Effect_of_sun_angle_on_climate&oldid=193154630; Milankovitch_cycles&oldid=185966677

before realising that I didn't know what your criteria are. Should they merely contain useful info and no/little disinformation, or do they have to be good and look pretty? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I should clarify. We have drifted from when it was a struggle to find 2000 decent WP articles to when there are now (I think) about 30,000 from which we need to choose a DVD full. For things which are fairly core science (from a school syllabus view) "useful info and no/little disinformation" is fine. Pretty matters at the margins. All of these suggestions look core to me. --BozMo talk 19:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a bit odd that you have Eye (cyclone) but not Cyclone, though I see thats been spotted already. Others:

Greenhouse gas, Ice core, climate model, sea ice, Global climate model (hack the accuracy section heavily), climate, attribution of recent climate change, Satellite temperature measurements, Temperature record of the past 1000 years

How many do you want? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats 16 more and a comfortable number. Puts climate and weather on a par with Pre 1500 British History which seems about right taking History and Geography as equal and comparing syllabus time... although a few things like the Water cycle probably need to go in too. --BozMo talk 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

One was a mistake, the other was a comment. I wasn't fully aware of how to report admins, I asked you how, but you didn't say anything, so I had to do it on my own. And don't say I'm making it worse for myself please. I appreciate leaving comments like that out. Malamockq (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need advice, though you don't realise it. But from now on, I'm out of this particular situation William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been citing evidence. Feel free to abstain from the recall discussion, however I will use comments you have made in the past as evidence to support my claims. Malamockq (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I need to go through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFC. It says I need at least two users who attempted to resolve the issue but failed. Can I use you and me as the two users in regards to Less? Malamockq (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. I oppose his recall, as I hope I've made clear. You may, of course, use any comments I've made provided you do so in context. But if you use them within the RFC, please make it clear that I have advised you not to proceed with this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will cite statements made by you in context, but if you have opinions about the matter, you should state them yourself. I can not state them for you. Malamockq (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Just a heads-up, since no one appears to have notified you - User:Lapsed Pacifist brought up a month-old block of yours on WP:AN/I. MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read it there, I'll go have another look. Doesn't look like I'm in immeadiate danger of de-sysopping. LP is annoyed with me because of some stuff he'd rather not have in his favourite article [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malamockq

I'm not very pleased with how that was handled. Did you take the time to see that he asked a simple question and was treated very poorly?

I really think you need to assess your ability to fairly handle disagreements on Wikipedia. The spirit of Wikipedia is one of collegiality and working together, a trait that you seem to overlook in your zeal to flip through rulebooks and dismiss gross injustices.

Being an administrator is a privilege. You should treat it as such.

Lordvolton (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take the time to find out what actually happened [4]. Its also fairly obvious that what you're really complaining about is my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Measurement causes collapse, may it live for never. And no, being an admin is generally regarded as a chore rather than a privilege William M. Connolley (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
-== Ronz again, already ==
-Ronz posted this just now at my talk:
-:'''Please consider refactoring per WP:CIVIL'''
-:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quackwatch&curid=2664234&diff=193342404&oldid=193341623] Thanks! --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-I can guess what he means, but I prefer not to. As usual, he vaguely insinuates, without specifying what he considers uncivil, on the basis of what particular policy. However, more significant to me, is that he continues to respond ''on my talk'', as we have discussed recently. He could reply at the at the discussion itself, where third parties would be able to agree with him that I have been uncivil (for example). Anyway:
-* I have made every reasonable effort to get him off my Talk; asking him, then making a wikiquette (ignored but for the response "too complex, make an RfC instead") and then an RfC (ignored flatly, timed-out with no response whatsoever). Then you blocked me from editting when I lost my temper. So I don't know what to do.
-* Will you flatly state that harassing a user on his Talk page, away from third party oversight, is not uncivil and therefore not actionable? I take that to be your view but you have not explicitly enunciated it. Perhaps my use of the term "harassment" is unsatisfactory. Ronz has plenty of avenues, Wikiquettes, the talk pages where the discussions are taking place, an AN/I, whatever; there should be no reason whatsoever for him to post to my Talk when he knows he is unwelcome there. I consider it egregious and I'm shocked there is no recourse.[[User:PeterStJohn|Pete St.John]] ([[User talk:PeterStJohn|talk]]) 20:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-: Your incivility is obvious. I don't understand why you're bringing this to my attention, since if anyone is in danger of sanction here, its you. Ronz's advice is good: you should follow it [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley#top|talk]]) 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-:: I don't know how to address "your incivility is obvious", but I can explain why I am bringing this to your attention. I have complained about Ronz posting at my talk page. You evidently believe there is nothing uncivil in posting at people's talk pages, even when asked not to (and I don't construe you to have asked me not to, yet). So when he posts to my page (which he does IMO to evade third party oversight) I will post to yours (since he seems not to want that). IMO you should either admit that posting repetitiously to someone's talk page is uncivil (and tell me what I can do to dissuade Ronz), or deny that it is uncivil (but then why are you threatening me with sanctions? "because it's obvious"?) I'm trying to force you to ennunciate a policy; then you could be accountable to whichever policy you choose. By being vague and dismissive, you illude accountability. I regret this is unpleasant but with authority comes responsibility. [[User:PeterStJohn|Pete St.John]] ([[User talk:PeterStJohn|talk]]) 20:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
-:::When the sparrow sings, the land is at peace; but when two crows fly north, the emperor is troubled. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
-:::: I'm unfamiliar with the allusion. [[User:PeterStJohn|Pete St.John]] ([[User talk:PeterStJohn|talk]]) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
-Ronz posted at my talk again; I moved it to a [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Ronz_.26_PeteStJohn|wikiquette]] because it's a good question. I don't understand why he can't keep off my talk, I don't know what to do about it, but I can't ignore fair questions. [[User:PeterStJohn|Pete St.John]] ([[User talk:PeterStJohn|talk]]) 20:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 == DVD ==