User talk:William M. Connolley: Difference between revisions
→File:Buch or something like that.jpg listed for discussion: Looks like bad faith to me |
Notification: speedy deletion nomination of File:Buch or something like that.jpg. (TW) |
||
Line 1,127: | Line 1,127: | ||
: Looks like bad faith to me [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley#top|talk]]) 18:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC) |
: Looks like bad faith to me [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley#top|talk]]) 18:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:File:Buch or something like that.jpg]]== |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]] |
|||
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read [[WP:Your first article|the guide to writing your first article]].</p><p>You may want to consider using the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article Wizard]] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}} |
|||
A tag has been placed on [[:File:Buch or something like that.jpg]], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G1|section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion]], because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]] for any other experiments you would like to do. |
|||
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by [[:File:Buch or something like that.jpg|visiting the page]] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]]. <!-- Template:Db-nonsense-notice --><!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 19:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:15, 27 June 2016
ERA40 Juli 1979, omega at 500 hPa
Dear Dr. Connolley,
with interest I have studied this figure.
![Omega-500-july-era40-1979.png](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Omega-500-july-era40-1979.png/220px-Omega-500-july-era40-1979.png)
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 192.67.218.50 (talk)
Thermal underwear
Idealized greenhouse model, or the section below
|
---|
![]() May I ask a question? I stress that I am not trying to do any original research, but only want to improve the GW article by explaining what is fundamental to the AGW hypothesis. I don't think the current article really explains it very well. My question: I did some Googling and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (or rather a derivative of it) seems to be fundamental. But there are two versions of it, as follows:
where alpha is albedo, S0 is a constant solar radiative flux (units W/m^2), T is temp in K, and sigma is a constant. The two sides of the equation both have units W/m^2. In the first equation e is 'emissivity' which is unitless and is the ratio of energy radiated by a particular material to energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. I think of it as an 'underpants factor'. You have a black body throbbing with radiation, which will cool unless you keep it warm. So you put some underpants on it, to keep the cold out, i.e. stop it radiating so much. Hence CO2 and water vapour are like thermal underwear to keep the earth warm (if e is 100%, the temperature is about -18 deg C, for if you solve for e with current temperature, assume 15 deg C, you find e is about 60%). I am assuming e is constant whatever the temperature for exactly the same material, is that correct? In reality e will change as the material of the atmosphere changes (more CO2, or more vapour). In the second equation G is a number, units also W/m^2, which is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system. If you solve for G for 15 deg C, you get about 150 W/m^2. My puzzle is whether G is also constant, if for other reasons (e.g. change in solar radiation, change in albedo) the temperature changes. Intuitively it won't be constant. Why represent it this way? Apologise if I have misunderstood, and please correct any mistakes (I am quite new to this, but it is interesting). Again, I am not trying to do any research, just finding out some facts that could be put into layman's language and hopefully into the article. I think thermal underwear is a better analogy than greenhouses, e.g. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Writing it all out is quicker than finding it, so... simplifying, the sun shines 4S units on the uniform earth (and since the area of a circle is 1/4 the area of a corresponding sphere the 4 drops out), which is a black body (forget albedo for the moment, it makes no real difference). The atmosphere is transparent to SW, and can be considered as a single layer not in conductive contact with the surface. There is no diurnal cycle, all is averaged out, all is in equilibrium. So at the sfc (with atmosphere) we have the following equation:
(the surface is black, captures all solar SW and transforms it into LW which it re-radiates) and G is the radiation from the atmosphere. Meanwhile, in the atmosphere,
(the atmospheric layer is totally opaque to the surface LW, is itself isothermal, and being a layer radiates both up and downwards). As it happens G = r(T_a)^4 but we don't care about that for tihs analysis. Hence, S + G = 2G, hence S = G, hence T_1 = (2S/r)^0.25. Meanwhile, in the absence of the atmosphere, we clearly would have T_2 = (S/r)^0.25. T_1 > T_2 (by a factor of 2^0.25) and (T_1 - T_2) is the greenhouse effect. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Also, this [3] and the linked [4] also refers, but is harder William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Blast from the past
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
All at Idealized greenhouse model it seems
|
---|
Thanks for your explanation which I am afraid I still don't really follow. I don't see how 'the earth heats the atmosphere' and 'the atmosphere heats the earth' can both be true.
| G ^ V Solar input. (4S ->) S | ---------------------------- Atmosphere. Emits G, up and down, thermal radiation. Absorbs S+G. ---------------------------- | | | V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S G V ^ S+G | ----------------------------- Sfc. Abs S(SW)+G(LW). Thus emits (S+G)(LW). Thus S+G = rT^4 Clear now? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, apart from the bit about not reflecting LW (that seemed picky, unless I misunderstood it), which of my claims was wrong? I said that the net outflow from earth to atmosphere has to be upwards. And that this outflow has to be exactly equal to the outflow from the atmosphere into space. Your diagram is incomprehensible. And what about Greenhouse effect where it says "Radiation is emitted both upward, with part escaping to space, and downward toward Earth's surface, making our life on earth possible." This is entirely wrong isn't it? It gives the impression that we are safe because only part of the radiation escapes to space, but the rest is trapped behind & keeps us snug and warm. The reality is that the net outflow from the earth has to be exactly balanced by the outflow at the edge of the atmosphere into space. Otherwise the atmosphere would keep on heating up until equilibrium was restored. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC) [edit] The unclearness of the diagram is the omission of the causality. You have the atmosphere radiating G downwards, e.g. Yes but where does the G come from? If we were to start with turning on the sun like a switch, at that instant there would be no G from the atmosphere. In which case the first thing to hit the earth would be S. Then earth would emit (not reflect) S. With no G. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
| 0 ^ V Solar input. (4S ->) S | ---------------------------- Atmosphere. At 0K. Doesn't radiate. ---------------------------- | | | V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S 0 V ^ 0 | ----------------------------- Sfc. Abs S(SW)+0(LW). At 0K. Doesn't radiate.
| 0 ^ V Solar input. (4S ->) S | ---------------------------- Atmosphere. At 0K. Doesn't radiate. ---------------------------- | | | V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S 0 V ^ G_T | ----------------------------- Sfc. Abs S(SW)+0(LW). Has warmed up somewhat, to T. Emits rT^4, call this G_T. So now the sfc has warmed up somewhat, so it is emitting G_T in the LW. Now the atmosphere isn't in balance: it is absorbing G_T but emitting nothing, since it is at 0K. So it will warm up. So it will start emitting downwards an warm further. And eventually we end up with the equilibrium solution William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
Service award update
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)
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'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)
- 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)
All the stupidity in one convenient place
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PD initial thoughtsWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision looks about as stupid as I'd expected, though not as stupid as some others expected. The failure of any meaningful remedies for admin involvement, which wrecked the CC probation, is a flaw. But to be fair, the PD is capable of becoming moderately sensible with the correct votes. The real test is who votes for that William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_WMC, in case you missed it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC) PD continuing thoughts
FoF thoughts
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
Final decision: thoughts
Issues...few seem to understand
More obsessive secrecy from arbcomm[12] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Discussion thereof
Blocked for two weeks
Off-wiki meatpuppetry encouraged by arbcom! Transparency decried as disruptive!Bizarre. I guess the appropriate thing to do now is to keep all conversations about climate change off wiki. Plausible deniability seems to be the arbitration committee's preferred mode of operation. Transparency is to be eschewed. This is oddly in-keeping with their primary mode of deliberation. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom enforcement:Talk page accessWMC, I removed a section from your talk page where you are posting related to Climate Change. Do not put it back or create another section if you want to retain talk page access. And consider this a formal warning that your block will be extended if you continue to post about CC on your talk page. FloNightUser talk:FloNight 12:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC) [Note - I've removed the irritating hearts from your sig - William M. Connolley (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)]
WMC, you're screwed no matter what you do. The Arbitration Committee acted in bad faith throughout the proceedings (not all members, I hasten to add, but that was the net effect). Since you aren't going to get a fair and impartial hearing regardless of what you do or don't do, I see no reason not to follow your conscience wherever that may lead. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Breakage
Secret messageYour conduct is being discussed at my talk page (though only peripherally). If there is anything you need to say in response please post it here and I may or may not meatpuppet it onto my page, depending on whether I do or don't. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
There was, of course, discussion of the case on the mailing list — though nowhere to the extent that some people imagine — but they were not substantive points but points of process; things like coordination of who was to write new proposals, suggested rewordings, exhortations to vote and get the effing case done. But, unlike what some people imagine, the actual nature of the decision gets very little attention on the list: you'll see the vast majority of that discussion and give-and-take on the decision page proper. (Coren) This is the most alarming thing I've seen in all the vast verbiage I've seen devoted to the case. I, like most rational people I expect, assumed that long delays during the proposed decision process, and the lack of workshopping and transparency in the discussion of the proposed decision, meant that, for whatever reason, the committee had decided to conduct their deliberations on the case behind closed doors. If this (bolded statement) is true and there were no substantive discussions on the decision behind closed doors, if in fact the only deliberations were the few brief exchanges that were visible on the proposed decision page, then I don't know what to say. I wouldn't go so far as WMC has done in questioning the veracity of Coren's assertion, I'll only say that to believe that the statement is not true is less damaging to ArbCom's credibility than believing that it's true, because believing that it's true means accepting that there were actually no deliberations of substance, which is not acceptable. Woonpton (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
But the most troubling point remains Coren's statement that "the vast majority of that discussion and give-and-take on the decision page proper." Since discussion on the decision page was perfunctory this demands the conclusion that there was practically no deliberation amongst the arbs regarding the merits of the case. In short, you can't have it both ways. You can't say on the one hand that there was "considerable discussion among the drafting arbitrators" and on the other that the discussion was mainly limited to the perfunctory comments we saw on the decision page. You guys aren't very good at this; if you care about retaining the sliver of credibility you have left you'll need to agree on a common story and stick with it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC) AE AppealThere being no consensus of uninvolved administrators to overturn your block I have closed your AE appeal accordingly. Your appeal is denied and the terms of the block are in force. Should you not agree with this decision you may appeal the matter directly to Arbcom. --WGFinley (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Lest I forget [16] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Time for a new strategyI don't know about you, but I think all this drama is unnecessary. My three-part plan:
Truth being, if most of the craziness in article space here ends up being a "flash in the pan" that is soon corrected without your help, then you might as well use your free time for fun and all is well (better, in fact: we've proven that you don't need to watch and defend the pages, and you can thank the arbs for your newfound free time). However, if lots of things have gone horribly wrong, then it will look like ArbComm's decision did not work out so well and WP is suffering quality-wise as a result. I say this because (1) I don't think that anything that you would do will make arbcomm revoke your topic ban come 6 months, and (2) regardless of wording, CC is beyond all bounds at the moment (and per #1 will remain so indefinitely). So I can see no reason to do anything but sit and watch. Awickert (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Shell / Rlevse / LHVUAnyone else noticed Shell's untrue Arbiters don't make accusations, other parties (oftentimes involved in the same dispute) present evidence, suggest findings and so on? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Rlevse: [17] William M. Connolley (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Climate change amendment: notification of three motions postedFollowing a request for amendment to the Climate change case, three motions have been posted regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors. For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The high point of this silliness: [18] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC) 1 week block![]() {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Adambro (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)![]() William M. Connolley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I don't even know what I've been blocked for. Where is this incivility? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:57 pm, Today (UTC+0) Decline reason: Your incivility has been adequately outlined at ANI, here.[dead link] Once you learn to use civilised, polite language, you'll be one of the most productive users here. Unfortunately, however, your persistence in throwing foul language at other users creates discord within the community and discourages other users from editing, and as it's extremely likely you'll do it again if unblocked early, I see no reason to unblock you. Civility is more than a policy: it's one of the five pillars. If you're not interested in following the five pillars, I suggest finding a project other than Wikipedia. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Also: I question your impartiality to review this unblock. You had stated uneqivocally much earlier [19] that "A one week block is certainly appropriate" which means you'd already made up your mind. That makes you unfit to review the block William M. Connolley (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
@CMTIAT: Please read the page I directed you to William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC) ![]() William M. Connolley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have made a harmless edit comment which worried no-one; real actual PA's on ANI such as [20] are being ignored; this is clear hypocrisy William M. Connolley (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Accept reason: If I unblock you, will you refrain from using naughty words? By all means, fire full broadsides at those who hound or attack you, but don't use gratuitously foul language. Use wit rather than profanity. M'kay? Jehochman Talk 18:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
|
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)
- 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)
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 [http://news.ucsc.edu/2010/09/planet.html - 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>
- 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
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)
- 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)
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
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
[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)
- Ah well. If your page survives deletion
PES
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
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
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)
|}
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)
Circumcision
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)
- 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)
Query
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Barnstar of diligence
![]() |
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)
Clarifications
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)
- [Drivel stripped- W]
- 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)
Cite to your work at Earth's Energy Budget
Hi William,
Was wondering if you know of a better citation than this? I don't, and have no plans to look; I'm just looking over the article in general to ponder potential improvements and saw this, which struck me as close, but not quite what we need for the given article text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ha, reasonable question. No, I don't know a better source. Essentially, that's a cite of a primary source - Fourier - but since its useful it should stay William M. Connolley (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking it out and for general de-horriblizing. Setting aside the sad current state, do you think that concept (Earth's energy budget) is among the climate articles that should bubble up in hits and quality? I mean, every article should. But I'm talking just about climate articles, and the ones that are most important to give readers a solid foundation in the subject. I'll observe that the article seems to be talking about energy budget at the top of the atmosphere, whereas the first one or two RSs talk about various energy budgets on earth, including the other biggie for climate, the one at earth's surface. The article doesn't really go into any of that, just sallies forth more or less talking about top-of-atmos radiative balance. Is that your read? Thoughts on whether/how to address this? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Its an important concept so yes I think it ought to be a decent article. Its also part of the things that people get wrong, when they fail to understand GW. But also, hopefully, its not really part of the GW wars so improving it shouldn't be too controversial William M. Connolley (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking it out and for general de-horriblizing. Setting aside the sad current state, do you think that concept (Earth's energy budget) is among the climate articles that should bubble up in hits and quality? I mean, every article should. But I'm talking just about climate articles, and the ones that are most important to give readers a solid foundation in the subject. I'll observe that the article seems to be talking about energy budget at the top of the atmosphere, whereas the first one or two RSs talk about various energy budgets on earth, including the other biggie for climate, the one at earth's surface. The article doesn't really go into any of that, just sallies forth more or less talking about top-of-atmos radiative balance. Is that your read? Thoughts on whether/how to address this? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tkuvho (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Closed with warnings to both you and Tkuvho. [28] --NeilN talk to me 16:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice William M. Connolley (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
![Stop icon with clock](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. NeilN talk to me 08:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, fair enough; apologies. I'll sit it out William M. Connolley (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- And, FWIW, I've taken the article off my watchlist so don't expect any comment from me there William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Please have a look at the radiative cooling page...
I am new to WP as an editor, and joined only because I saw what I consider to be recent mischief on the page for "Radiative Cooling". You seem to be a good candidate to repair this. I hope I am not violating some rule or etiquette by bringing this to your attention. I do intend to try to learn to be an editor, but it will take a while. Regards, Jdbeckerle (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- radiative cooling... ah, you're thinking of [29]. Indeed, that's drivel; happily its already been reverted William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Recent merging of solar related articles
Hi, do you have any opinion on merges who were recently made without consensus, including content removal? See for more, here. Basically i think there are/were to many articles but i think the merging is to selective. prokaryotes (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I too agree on the too-many articles, but haven't been tracking the mergers. I have some concerns - see [30]. I can be involved in looking over what now exists William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is this merger from Solar variation into Solar cycle (See in particular this old content), and a merger from Insolation into Solar irradiance (See also talk page there), and moved Solar and celestial effects on climate to Orbital effects on climate and Solar and celestial effects on climate, and remaining parts to new article Solar activity and climate. prokaryotes (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Probabilities
If we add probabilities, we can add these to every single number, not just those currently discussed. Seems pretty much redundant to me.prokaryotes (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ideally, every number would perhaps have such. But this is an important individual number, we can afford to spend more effort on it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Global warming hiatus revert
Re this edit: Who are you saying Shoalshone is a sockpuppet of? If you know you should, of course, report him to the appropriate SPI. Everymorning (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- The usual. Why do you care? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I noticed the edit and your revert thereof because the page is on my watchlist because I created it. If he is a sock of a blocked/banned user, he should be blocked. Everymorning (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- its just another throwaway sock like User:Feel the Bern William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I noticed the edit and your revert thereof because the page is on my watchlist because I created it. If he is a sock of a blocked/banned user, he should be blocked. Everymorning (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
![]() |
The Environmental Barnstar | |
For your diligence and hard work on Global warming Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC) |
Request
As an editor whom I respect much, I would like to ask your opinion regarding the issue under discussion at User_talk:Debresser#These_courtesy_notifications_are_getting_pointless. It regards the definition of a revert, as a reason for sanctions per 1RR, 3RR etc. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Its ages since I did 3RR patrols; the *exact* meaning of revert, and what is covered by 3RR or 1RR is subject to interpretation. Depending on context, and removal of pre-existing material can be considered a revert. Reading some, but not all, of your talk page discussion I think you're skating on very thin ice, and should weight NeilN's opinions more heavily William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Would you be interested in giving your opinion concerning sources on the Basil I talk page? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Basil I, called the Macedonian... - I knew what was coming when I read that :-(. Nonetheless, I've offered my opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Global cooling edit war
I've been watching the current edit war going on at the Global cooling page. To me it looks like there may be a sock puppet involved, considering the multiple new editors and IP edits on the one side versus the edits by established editors on the other side. Trilobitealive (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think so. User:Yehuix is obviously a sock, I've just tagged it. The other is too :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Looks like a tempest in a teapot to me but I dislike sock puppetry. Trilobitealive (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Rollback misuse
Hello. Reverting Rolling back an edit with which you disagree, and rolling back multiple edits when you have an issue with one, as you did at ExxonMobil 16:38 8 November 2015 is a misuse of the rollback privilege WP:ROLLBACK. Please self-revert. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- er... that looks like a simple revert with edit summary and not WP:rollback, perhaps you need to read that link you provided. It can't be a "misuse" if it wasn't used. Vsmith (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Vsmith is correct William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your edit summary does not explain your reversion of multiple consecutive edits, most egregiously your reversion of combining two duplicate references via a named reference. Please justify your reversion with a dummy edit or self-revert. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- No. You can please start by retracting your assertion that I misused rollback William M. Connolley (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the strike out. As to my edit, the summary that the sources doesn't say that is correct, and applies to As early as 1981, ExxonMobil was planning for climate change, while actively misleading the public William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your reversion of multiple consecutive edits reverted combining two duplicate references via a named reference. Please self-revert. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- You are starting to sound like a broken record. Please read what I've written, above William M. Connolley (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your reversion of multiple consecutive edits reverted combining two duplicate references via a named reference. Please self-revert. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the strike out. As to my edit, the summary that the sources doesn't say that is correct, and applies to As early as 1981, ExxonMobil was planning for climate change, while actively misleading the public William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- No. You can please start by retracting your assertion that I misused rollback William M. Connolley (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your edit summary does not explain your reversion of multiple consecutive edits, most egregiously your reversion of combining two duplicate references via a named reference. Please justify your reversion with a dummy edit or self-revert. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Vsmith is correct William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories...
So did we read the same paper and came to the same conclusions, or did we both get the official cheat sheet from the Communist Climate Takeover Coalition? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, gotcha. Yes we do seem to be singing from the same songsheet. http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100455181 if you haven't seen it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
New user note
I've removed a bit of self-promotion from user:Nabilswedan here and nixed a semi-prot edit request here. A name search led to your Stoat comment so I thought you might be interested. Vsmith (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, its interesting, I might even note it. I wonder how brave he is? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Harassment at Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand
Your edits to Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand are disruptive. At ExxonMobil, you suggested I find another article to work on. You followed me to this article and paragraph blanked with an open in-progress good article review. Please respect the good article process. Some of our colleagues have worked hard on this article. Please respect that. Your expression of animosity to me is unfair to our colleagues who worked hard on this article. As you know, stability is a prerequisite for a good article review. I understand you would like to edit war and are baiting. I am sure you understand this article falls under discretionary sanctions and you are expected to exhibit exemplary editor behavior. Please cease your harassment and edit war baiting. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- No, my edits are not disruptive; your accusations are bad faith where they are comprehensible. I do indeed think you should step away from ExxonMobil; alas, you aren't William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
LEAVE HUGHD ALONE. I REPORTED YOU TO AN. LET HIM DO A PROPER GAR ON CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.50.141 (talk • contribs)
William, you may be wondering why random IPs are attacking you. Just to be clear, they are not the doing of HughD. Instead you are dealing with the after effects of a banned editor. Here is the relevant discussion [31]. HughD seems to be involved only because he reached out to the now banned editor (which lead in part to a topic ban for HughD). Springee (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, that provides some context. Naturally, I didn't read it all :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. That IP editor (a series of IPs actually) has been harassing Ricky in particular and WP to a lesser extent for a while. Note, none of the discussion regarding this IP are meant to excuse Hugh's tendentious editing. I mentioned it to Ricky a few days back after Hugh deleted several of my talk comments. A clear no-no and just days after he was found to have violated the 3RR rule. Springee (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Worth a visit?
This would be a good place for a side visit on your next Alpine jaunt. Just to say you've been there. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Spend the night and you can say you laid your head there. Or take your sweetie and ..... well, nevermind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm still holing out for Wank William M. Connolley (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Freudian typo? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oops, I see what you mean. In that case, I can let you know that I don't really like Spunk William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Freudian typo? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm still holing out for Wank William M. Connolley (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, William M. Connolley. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Since you have had involvement with HughD, you should see how many edits he added to the Ford Pinto article. 200 in the 5 days before it was locked! Seriously, if you are brave you should give it a look. Springee (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am *not* going to look at that article :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
oopsie daisie
You probably saw this already, but if not, see note at top of my talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Check your mail :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks; but I've been too sucked in anyway. A real break will be good for me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I can respect that William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks; but I've been too sucked in anyway. A real break will be good for me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
RE Dow
Two main problems with the material there - Bhopal is only mentioned because they are still being sued after alledgedly inheriting Carbides obligations to clean up the site - they are of course, in no way responsible for the disaster itself, its immediate aftermath etc, the death count and so on. This is all covered at a dedicated article and on the historical article for Carbide. Second, as they have not merged yet with Dupont, anything relating to Duponts historical activities is not relevant to Dow as it stands. Even in the event a similar situation to Bhopal crops up, it would belong either on the Dupont article, or a combined Dow-Dupont article. The above issues basically serve to unduly skew the Dow article towards implying they have a much worse environmental record than they do have, by coatracking in, at best, slightly related issues in an overly detailed manner. All of which is largely irrelevant to SageRad as they are topic banned from agricultural chemicals broadly construed, and given your knowledge of the area (and topic bans) I am pretty sure you can spot why SageRad editing any articles mentioned here is a problem. Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've just left SR a note asking him to clarify his attitude to the ban William M. Connolley (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- While normally there is a bit of leeway regarding sections of articles that may not specifically related to topic bans, it is a bit of a strech to claim Dow are not an agricultural chemical company. Thats why broadly construed is construed... broadly. (Plus the Bhopal disaster was a fertiliser plant exploding) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you; I was hoping to give SR a chance to do the same. Unfortunately, my question has been met with a somewhat intemperate response [32]. Unless someone else does it first, I'll raise this somewhere in an hour or two; if SR is sensible he'll calm down first William M. Connolley (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- FYI, this kind of mentality has more or less been the standard since (and before) the topic ban was made official. I was hoping they'd finally settle down after being forced into new topics, but it looks like they're still being quick to sling accusations of hounding, threats, etc. even with editors not involved in the GMO case (why I largely ignored SR's recent edits when they pop up on my watchlist lately). Some kind of enforcement seems likely at this point with their history, but before that, I'm hoping someone can finally get it through SageRad's head that they are driving off a cliff with their current attitude. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, I can't help thinking that it is unlikely to end well. Nonetheless, I'd rather avoid the tedious admin of AE while SR is, for the moment at least, backing off (so my "in an hour or two", above, gets indefinitely extended) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- FYI, this kind of mentality has more or less been the standard since (and before) the topic ban was made official. I was hoping they'd finally settle down after being forced into new topics, but it looks like they're still being quick to sling accusations of hounding, threats, etc. even with editors not involved in the GMO case (why I largely ignored SR's recent edits when they pop up on my watchlist lately). Some kind of enforcement seems likely at this point with their history, but before that, I'm hoping someone can finally get it through SageRad's head that they are driving off a cliff with their current attitude. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you; I was hoping to give SR a chance to do the same. Unfortunately, my question has been met with a somewhat intemperate response [32]. Unless someone else does it first, I'll raise this somewhere in an hour or two; if SR is sensible he'll calm down first William M. Connolley (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- While normally there is a bit of leeway regarding sections of articles that may not specifically related to topic bans, it is a bit of a strech to claim Dow are not an agricultural chemical company. Thats why broadly construed is construed... broadly. (Plus the Bhopal disaster was a fertiliser plant exploding) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
CS
Re your rv lede today. I am not aware of reason why not to include that. Maybe we can settle with a move to a new section then, i.e. Projections or Model simulations? Ps. I find your response time over there fascinating ;) prokaryotes (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Best discussed at article talk. I recall I have some problems with that article overall William M. Connolley (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
American Pie
Don't ever remove information from articles which you have no clue about. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 22:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- My, you're rude William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- I see you have chosen to delete all the warnings and not to discuss, suit yourself. None of you editors actually want to expand the article regarding McLean's version but weirdly want to delete everything. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 22:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your warnings would only make sense had you also templated yourself; since you didn't, I can only assume they were made for show William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- And your complaint about removing warnings is now clearly revealed as hypocrisy William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:WMC coxing.jpg
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/64px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:WMC coxing.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I put the bloody statement onto the page itself. Can you people not read? But I've forwarded a f*ck*ng email to the jackboot list to keep you people happy William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- What's it with the goatee? Reminds me a bit of a cross of Ming the Merciless and Fu Manchu as they would have been portrayed by Peter Sellers... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- it isn't formally a goatee; and it just grew. I'll keep you updated on its progress William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- This goatee, from Henry M. Hoyt comes instantly to mind. prokaryotes (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- it isn't formally a goatee; and it just grew. I'll keep you updated on its progress William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- What's it with the goatee? Reminds me a bit of a cross of Ming the Merciless and Fu Manchu as they would have been portrayed by Peter Sellers... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
pinging you re Talk:Global_warming_hiatus
For some reason, I can't "view source" on the reply-to template page (it explains that the page is protected; why that should stop me from viewing source I don't know). So I'm pinging you this way. CometEncke (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- No need to ping me, I have a watchlist William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Rancorous
I presume Denis.g.rancourt is Denis Rancourt? In which case he should not be editing that list. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- I presume he is. I don't think that forbids him from editing the list though - why would it? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Because he's on it. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- His presence there is a strong net negative leading to big wastes of time -- for instance he tried to add John Schellnhuber to a list of "skeptics" (no, seriously, he really did). But I don't see anything inherently wrong with him editing the list. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Because he's on it. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Collect essay; second bite at the cherry
You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do these idiots never give up? Thanks for letting me know William M. Connolley (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Time for a Category:Idiotic Wikipedia essays. Writegeist (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Buch or something like that.jpg listed for discussion
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Buch or something like that.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 15:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like bad faith to me William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:Buch or something like that.jpg
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on File:Buch or something like that.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hugh (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)