Beware the Flag of the Rouge 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.

This is a Happy Talk Page. No bickering.

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

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

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

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

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

My Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions • Block log

The Holding Pen

The <div> tag and Cascading Style Sheets

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

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

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

The style element is what's most interesting here though, it lets you override the default style of an element. So the part within the style="" is actually CSS.

W3C (website) is in charge of the CSS standard and it can be found on their website. Unfortunately, the dominating browser sets the de facto standard so things might not work as expected or even be implemented yet.

The W3C specifications aren't particularly good for learning but they are good as a reference. What you are looking for is probably: [1].

If you search the webb for CSS you will find countless examples and tutorials. Quick Googling turned up this for example: [2].

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

Thanks! William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics

Crownest has expressed interest in reviving this. Since you were a member of the FD project (now converted into a taskforce), I'm wondering if you'd be a part of the Taskforce. The taskforce is undergoing a significant overhaul at the moment, and by the end of it, it should be fairly easy to get around and there should be a nifty compendium of useful tools for people interested in FD. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I can help in small ways, though no longer being professionally involved. I wonder if there is an embedded prog taskforce? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prog taskforced?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Current

CF topic bans

Perhaps should be logged somewhere, given the propensity for WP:LAWYER etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else suggested that, but over the deniable channel of email. Could do; I'm not sure I'm too bothered. If you want to note I've done it, feel free William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was half-way through a post to ANI on the thread started by Woonpton when I lost the lot, got annoyed and went to bed. This morning, I find a bold solution has been implemented, saving me the need to re-collect diffs, etc. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to thank Connolley, now I can pospone again the collection of lots of diffs for a RFC/U. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMC, your banning me and Hipocrite from Cold fusion was actually a solution I had suggested in several places (banning from the article, not from Talk. The article ban is not the problem. Your being the one to do it is a minor problem, because of our prior involvement, and the above exchange shows clear bias and personal involvement in a dispute (an extended, long-term dispute) with me. I posted this response to your comment at Cold fusion:

WMC, I dispute the Talk page restriction, and you are an involved administrator with respect to me, it's easily and immediately shown, and you have, ordinarily, no business imposing a non-voluntary ban on me. However, because the concern here is the article, not the Talk page, I will waive my right to contest the ban based on your involvement, and will accept it, if you limit the ban to 30 days for the article itself, for both Hipocrite and myself. Both of us, on my Talk page, already agreed to a mutual ban like this, limit unspecified, in order to expedite unprotection and allow the article to follow consensus without fuss, so your imposition of something greater than that merely means you haven't been paying attention, this was all pointed out to you. Please advise if you accept this. Until then, I will consider the full restriction to be in place, as declared by you, upon provision of notice to myself and Hipocrite on User Talk pages -- so that it is mutual and properly noticed --, and would later appeal. Until then, or, better, until you lower the ban to just the article, which is all that could be justified from the situation, I will make no further posts to this page.

Thanks. If you modify it as requested, this may have cut the Gordian knot. Otherwise, I'm afraid, it will increase disruption, not reduce it. --Abd (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted that brief comment, with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=next&oldid=294842682 (Decision: deleted adb comment - the terms of the ban are clear):

[Deleted. Do this again and I block you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)] --Abd (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is utterly unnecessary wikidrama and threat.

I'd already agreed to an article topic ban and considered it in effect, under the terms of my agreement with Hipocrite on my Talk page.
I stated in my comment that you deleted that I would make no further edits to the page, pending resolution, even though I disputed your right to declare the ban without my agreement. Therefore the threat was unnecessary, and, in this case, you would not be an appropriate admin to enforce the ban in any case, you are clearly involved and biased.
There was no warning over Talk page participation.
I had just challenged your choice of version to revert to; when you made that choice, it was, on the face, based on a suggestion from GoRight, with almost no discussion but a consent from one party whose editing goals were actually furthered by it, he had edit warred to keep the material present in the May 31 version out of the article (that was the occasion for your protection of May 21); most of that material had been accepted by consensus, and we were working on more when he edit warred again, resulting in additional protection, and because he had gamed RfPP, major POV changes had been made that were worse than reverts. There were, as you know, two polls set up to consider what version to revert to. I set one up, listing some versions that I thought should be considered. Only one of these was my own preferred version of the possibilities, it was the version that existed when Hipocrite reverted himself, probably to avoid hitting 3RR (I wasn't edit warring at all in this sequence), then went to RfPP, then made a major POV edit to the lead, immediately, knowing that protection was coming down. That was the version that I thought best, it simply undid the result of gaming RfPP. Hipocrite refused to participate in that poll, instead setting up his own poll, proposing versions more to his liking. A few editors participated in that poll, since I believed that !votes for all versions should be collected in one place, I copied those !votes, in equivalent form, to my own poll, so that it would be complete. I also added the version as reverted by you. You might notice that, looking at both polls, it's the May 31 version that *everyone* supported, with, so far, low support for the May 14 version you chose. You ignored an expressed article consensus to pick a version on your own. I must conclude that it's possible you personally preferred this version, or realized that you would effectively be supporting Hipocrite's edit warring by choosing that version. GoRight had no knowledge of the history.
Your complete ban from the article and from Talk looks punitive to me.

Please reduce the ban to 30 days from the article only, and recuse yourself from further administrative involvement, and please notify Hipocrite of the ban, if you have not already done so. You hadn't last I looked. --Abd (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decline your request. I am happy to note that portions of the ban correspond to a voluntary agreement. Whilst I anticipate it lasting approximately one month, the period remains indefinite. Since the page is now unprotected, the version I chnaged it to under protection is now moot William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not moot to questions of admin use of tools while involved, and to editing an article to a preferred version while it's under protection, without consensus having formed for that version. See you around. --Abd (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Dr. Connolley, I can't seem to find a policy justification for the topic ban on cold fusion. Can you point me to one? Thanks, Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the user box in the top right hand corner of your page :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr. Connolley. I sometimes edit the cold fusion article. I'm sorry but I don't understand your reply above to Geoff Plourde. I would appreciate it if you would tell me what policy or process you're using as a justification for topic-banning Hipocrite and Abd, (and if IAR, then what the reason is for invoking it), and also what behaviour you're addressing. Thank you. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see GP's user page? And you see the box in the top right corner? That's what I meant by "I refer you to the user box in the top right hand corner of your page". I'm using common sense. I might make up a process if you forced me to William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoRight's Follow-up Questions

Now that the dust has settled on this and things are moving again at Cold Fusion I have been going back to review the process which was followed at arriving where we are in terms of the topic bans. This caused me to go back an review the substance of a similar case involving JzG and his ban of Jed Rothwell.

My interactions with JzG in that case are documented here. Because of this reflection the parallels between that case and this one are now becoming evident to me, and so I have a couple of questions in this regard:

Are you planning to record your declaration of a topic ban at WP:RESTRICT as would be customary for such bans?
While you don't appear to have been involved in the content dispute at Cold Fusion, do you recall if you have ever had occasion to support any bans or other sanctions against either User:Hipocrite or User:Abd elsewhere? I only ask because recent Arbcom decisions related to Abd and JzG have indicated that prior involvement such as that may render the current bans suspect in some respects and I just want to make sure that proper procedure has been followed in this case.
In the Arbitration request I participated in (referenced above), there was never a clear articulation of the policies JzG relied upon to declare a ban of Rothwell without significant community discussion of the topic. Given that you took action without any such discussion could you please describe the basis of your authority to unilaterally declare such a ban in this case?

As I have said earlier, I certainly support an enforced cooling off period for some amount of time in this case for these users, but only if such action is within the bounds of Wikipedia Administrative norms and policies. So if you have any sort of contentious history with either of the banned users it might be best to explicitly recuse yourself from further action and find another completely uninvolved Administrator to sanction and enforce this ban. If you have no such entanglements then we should be good to go.

The only real problem that I, personally, have with the current ban (assuming the proper i's are dotted and such) is that you have not declared a date certain for the expiration of the ban and in fact have indicated that you consider it indefinite (but approximately one month in duration). I definitely have a problem with an indefinite ban for either of these users, especially without community discussion on that point. Lacking such community consensus for such indefinite action would it punative, IMHO, which is not the purpose we should be approaching things from. Would you consider setting a date certain for the end of the ban?

Do you have any other thoughts or concerns in these regards that should be addressed to properly enforce these bans?

Thanks for your time and assistance. --GoRight (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but feel free.
You can read A's and H's block log as well as I can. I recall a RFC on Abd but can't find it just now.
There has been endless discussion.

I think that things are moving again at Cold Fusion is correct and the most relevant statement here. Second-choice goes to your arbcomm link [4] which on a cursory reading appears to support JzG's prior action. Wiki isn't for editors to have fun at; it is an encyclopaedia. Discussion is good, and endless discussion can be fun if you like that, but is bad if obscures progress as it has at CF William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Don't mind me, I'm just kibitzing. Disclosure: As far as I know I have no previous involvement in this topic. I have advocated for a block of – or actually blocked – both of these editors in the past for their actions in unrelated areas.)

As WMC says, the key is that things are moving again. While I'm not a mindreader (and WMC is welcome to expand on or correct my interpretation), I would assume that the article and talk bans were issued for three reasons:

Long-term low-level edit warring;
Persistently unpleasant, obnoxious, antagonistic tone on the talk page; and
Inability to stop arguing by one or both participants.

No outside editor wanted to wade into the pit of flame, and any who did anyway could barely get a word in edgewise. The article was under long-term protection, third parties weren't being heard except to be used as tokens in fights on the talk page.

Post-ban, the article is unprotected, civil discussion is taking place, and so far nobody's words are getting lost in pages of circular screed. I hope it will last, and I certainly think that the experiment is worthwhile.

I'm not a fan of time-limiting the bans. This problem wasn't going away by itself, and neither editor should be allowed to return to this topic until he shows the underlying problem has been resolved. Both Abd and Hipocrite expressed an interest in mediation at User talk:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion. If they demonstrate an ability to work collaboratively and collegially there (or in some other forum), perhaps WMC might consider lifting their bans at cold fusion. In the meantime, there's no point to disrupting the work of editors who are behaving themselves. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very good summary of the situation. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory ANI thread

See need review of the topic ban of two editors from Cold Fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempted ban of me from Cold fusion

Dr. Connolley, given objections raised above, I'm withdrawing my consent to any ban from Cold fusion; I've concluded that:

You are involved, and were engaged in a content dispute with me based on my questioning of your reversion of the article while under protection to the May 14 version.
You were also involved due to prior dispute with me. You are not neutral.
I proposed that I would accept the ban, regardless of that, if you did not include Talk:Cold fusion, made it 30 days, and notified Hipocrite on his Talk of the dual ban. You did not accept this offer, it is withdrawn. A voluntary ban was originally proposed as an attempt to encourage rapid unprotection of the article so that serious damage could be repaired, and I extended that offer in an attempt to avoid conflict. However, you insisted on maintaining your extreme position without compromise, and the need for unprotection is now moot.
You have no authority to ban a user from an article, on your own initiative, per WP:BAN. You may block for disruption, and you may propose or accept a voluntary ban in lieu of a block, but I was not engaged in disruptive activity at the time of your issuance of the ban, or at any other time; and even if I was, a normal block would have expired and imposing one now, absent present disruption, would be punitive and contrary to policy.
The ban does not exist. IAR isn't just for you. And, please, do read the essay that you cited as part of your ban justification above, Don't be a dick. Maybe read it a few times. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your consent is not and was not required: that is the nature of a ban, it is involuntary. Your attempt to find a spurious "involvement" is noted and rejected William M. Connolley (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I be so bold as to suggest that issuing the ban under these provisions of the Pseudoscience ArbCom case might avoid a large amount of debate? Abd has commented at his talk page about the best way forward being to defy the ban and then appeal any resulting block. Heading off a battle seems a desirable goal to me. Just my $0.02 EdChem (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project is a nice broad phrase, you could hide anything under that. However, the next line is Prior to any sanctions being imposed... so I won't be using it. Perhaps I'll invoke article thirty-six instead William M. Connolley (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He could try, but it wouldn't fly. Cold fusion is not WP:Pseudoscience. Consensus has been that it is fringe science, however, one of the points in dispute (long term) is whether or not it has moved into the category of "emerging science," still quite controversial, but with large minority opinion favoring it, easily estimated at one-third of independent experts who review the evidence, in 2004, and arguably higher now. Popular opinion among "scientists" is clearly lower, but scientists as a whole are not necessarily more informed than the general educated public as to topics outside their expertise. The ban was not declared as a violation of that ArbComm ruling, and no evidence was proposed or provided that such a violation had occurred. Nice try, EdChem, but no cigar. Cigars are bad for you. --Abd (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, please either contest the ban at ANI or with ArbCom (wherever you like), or just observe it (you could flout it, but that might be see as disruption to prove a point and seems the least sensible option). But please stop going on about it. Isn't this one of the things you were censured about before (dragging things on I mean). Why not just accept it and move on? Verbal chat 14:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with above from Verbal)I think I missed your last edit, Dr. Connolley. Your analysis is correct. If Wikipedia were a battleground, you could try Article 36, except that Article 36 does not establish any new offenses nor does it allow new sanctions outside of existing "laws and customs." I.e., policies and guidelines. You were on stronger ground with WP:IAR, but IAR should not be invoked, in the presence of dispute, for more than emergency measures pending review. Thanks for providing the opportunity to examine these issues.

Verbal, I haven't been censured by ArbComm, ever, I was "advised," and I'm following the advice. I know what I'm doing. --Abd (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then please do it, as at the moment it seems you are just baiting William and fostering drama. That may not be your intention, but it is the impression being given. (William, feel free to remove this if you feel that is better)Verbal chat 14:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled. Please do what? I have no intention of editing Cold fusion or Talk cold fusion just to make a point. Dr. Connolley, please ask these editors to stop baiting me. I think we are done with this discussion, correct? --Abd (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was simply a reply to your "I know what I'm doing". My advice remains to either go to ani or accept the ban. ANI seems to endorse the ban. Verbal chat 10:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Abd, you say on your comment that "I have no intention of editing Cold fusion or Talk cold fusion just to make a point"[5] (emphasis added), I'll just point to this comment you had made some hours ago as it speaks by itself of what you intended to do. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to those who seem to be all in a tizzy, here, Abd and WMC are being the most sensible of the lot. Like I said at AN/I unless and until either one of them makes a definitive move it is rather a stalemate and they both seem to recognize this, hence neither is making another move. They both have been around long enough to know how the game is played (to use a common turn of phrase).

As long as this is the case you have what you want at Cold Fusion so stop making a fuss as it is now YOUR fuss that is causing all the drama and disruption. Chill out and let things run their course. --GoRight (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sage words there, I'll take your advice and chill out. And I suggest you take your own advice and chill out too :P I just noticed that you have already posted 11 15 different comments at the ANI thread, that's more comments than the editor being banned (Abd with 8) or the editor raising the issue (myself with 5), with the other top posters being Verbal with 6 comments and Mathsci with 4 (yeah, I like counting things). I suggest that so many postings will not reinforce your arguments and might even damage them, just saying. Myself, I will try to STFU at that thread for that same reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I am a bit chatty. That having been said I was holding discussions with multiple people. 15 to me with 5 + 6 + 4 = 15 to the other top posters. Ratio seems about right then. The discussion is now closed so we can all focus on other things, I guess. Sorry, WMC, about abusing your talk page for these side topics. Moving on. --GoRight (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion here, in case you weren't aware: Wikipedia:Ani#need_review_of_the_topic_ban_of_two_editors_from_Cold_Fusion. Verbal chat 10:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connolley, I sent you an email. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@V: yes I saw. Thank you. @EN: replied. Don't worry William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think that there is no problem..... I hope that you are right. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. --GoRight (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a minor issue, need some small help

Hey, I wouldn't ask this of you, but I'm going to be gone for most of the day in about 20 minutes, so you're my only hope. There's an IP (possibly a couple of IPs) on the article Korn's Ninth Studio Album that keep re-posting large chunks of information that are either unsourced, or not properly sourced (i.e. YouTube, MySpace Blogs). They have reverted me twice now, and I would try to handle them myself, but seeing as I have to go in under 20 minutes, I probably won't be able to follow through. Could you do me a favor and keep an eye on the page for me? Thanks. --The Guy _complain ^edits 17:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um. I know nothing about this. Fortunately it won't be a disaster if the article is dubiously sourced for a day William M. Connolley (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Hi William,

Seeing that you have protected the article, we would like to know what your plans are from here. Also how long have you protected the article and are we to refer to you now regarding our concerns. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on ANI: protection just means it is protected. You all get to talk on the talk page and try to resolve your problems. If you try hard you (not necessarily you personnally; you as a group of editors) may persuade me to invoke the cold fusion method of dispute solution. But you may prefer King Log William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We will talk on the talk page, but the results of the discussion are quite predictable. All the regular editors want the previous version restored. One editor, Dbachmann, who sporadically edits the article, wants us to revert to a four month old version. I can conduct a quick straw poll to determine this if you like. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How you resolve it is up to you; non-binding straw polls can be of interest, though people have a regrettable tendency to then say "rv to consensus" in edit comments as though expecting the poll to be binding. That always winds me up William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your references to cold fusion and king log above. I agree that straw polls can be hijacked by people with no interest in the subject but who are merely drummed up to express their own POV. I still don't understand why this has become a dispute at all - only one editor was disruptive, and he didn't bother to discuss the reasons for his unhappiness - merely that he thinks the scope of the article should be different. Why should the process not rather consist of asking that editor to justify his opinions, instead of setting everything back months and requiring everyone else to justify all the work they have done in good faith? Wdford (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have established a straw poll Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy#Straw_poll. I agree that straw polls can be hijacked by uninterested parties. So I suggest considering edit history when looking at a straw poll. If a user has never edited the article or posted on the talk page but participates in a poll, then such an opinion may not be a reflection of what regular editors think. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are not something to ever laugh at ... I am, however laughing at process and timing. No sooner had I read Wapondaponda's reply to my comment, BAM, there you were with your "I have" post. I'm not laughing at the block, but the way it came to pass at the end. Maybe I've just been working too hard today, and small things amuse me - my kids, however, are looking at me strangely. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strive for irony. Don't worry about your kids looking at you strangely, kids always do that to their parents. Or at least mine always do. I thought it happened to everyone. Err William M. Connolley (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Kids... And I thought I was the only one dancing in the night. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy talk page

I know, I know... but don't you ever wonder if that AO guy is indeed a newbie as he claimed? Hey, stop directing him to my talk page when the discussion is all over his! I re... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... (sentence was self censored!) Reminds me when I was a newbie, kind of combative if you know what I mean. Cheers~! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to Hailtomaximus

thanks for taking the time to answer, I don't really follow the logic as to why there is data on the main page (incorrect and out date...in the form of the graph of the Northern Hemisphere with a grossly overstated 2004 value), but the data I want to present should go on the article page ?

I think we can find common ground that the Earth has been cooling since, and I suppose there is debate here if its 1998 or 2000 (NASA). So, if 8 or 10 years cooling is not worthy of a mention on the main page, how many years do we need before it would be worthy ? If in 2018, we have 20 years of cooling....will we still cling to the belief that the earth is warming ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailtomaximus (talk • contribs) 02:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the links on the main graph....the black is a composite of 3 or 4 data sources...one of the is Hadley. They have new data out for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. I think we should incorporate the data for the last 4 years. I would be willing to do that. Any concerns with showing current data ?

(from Waats up with That re:Hadleys's 2008 data) The global surface temperature anomaly data from the UK Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temp anomaly is plotted below) has just been released, and it shows a significant drop in the global temperature anomaly in January 2008, to just 0.034°C, just slightly above zero —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailtomaximus (talk • contribs) 02:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You need to slow down a little, and learn how things work before you charge around too much. Turning up brim full of enthusiasm reverting the same text onto the wrong page and not even knowing how to sign your name just isn't going to work. Why are you doing this on Temperature record of the past 1000 years anyway? Apart from a deep desire to join the anti-Mann crusade, wouldn't Instrumental temperature record be more obvious for what you're trying to say? And of course with a grossly overstated 2004 value is simply incorrect. Quoting "Waats up with That" (even if you spell it properly) around here will get you laughed at. If you don't know why, you need to learn William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the input on charging around, the spelling correction, and information about signing my name.

I also quoted NASA !. NASA claims its been getting colder for 9 Years. My question to you is, how many years of the Earth Cooling does it take before we at least mention it ??

Another Question. Why does the primary page on Temperature History of the Earth, show a graph of North America ? When do we plan to incude 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 data ? Why is this left off ?

All the Global Warming Forecasts have failed to predict the recent cooling, is that worth a mention ?

If this is a Happy Page, then why the negative comments about other authors ? Hailtomaximus (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also quoted NASA - assuming you are referring to [6], no you didn't. You made vague reference to NASA, this is a very different thing. What you have done is vaguely analagous to inserting "You can't eat weasels, says the bible" onto a page about nutrition. Also, "Although..." should be obviously impermissable langauge, I would have hoped.

Why does the primary page on Temperature History of the Earth, show a graph of North America. This is a wiki. It allows links. No, I'm not going to bother trying to guess which page you mean when you can easily show me. If this is a Happy Page, then why the negative comments about other authors - it is more of an aspiration than a target. Which comments? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use current data, rather than 2004. Cherry Picking ?? The graph shows and *, with no explanation.

Here is the specific link to NASA 2008 summation http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

Here is the text from NASA's current Web Site. GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data.

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.

(of course they are throwing our 1934 cause it doesn't fit their model...)Hailtomaximus (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use current data, rather than 2004. Cherry Picking ?? - please WP:AGF. The plot, as you could have discovered for yourself, was created some time ago. If you care to put the work into updating it, please do. Or you could contact the original author. If you do, I advise doing so with respect - you might even care to read and understand the quote from Hobbes on this page.

of course they are throwing our 1934 cause it doesn't fit their model - are you confusing US temperatures with global ones? A glance at File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png will show you that 1934 isn't very interesting globally.

As to your arguments about cooling - all this is doubtless new and very exciting to you. But we've seen it all before. See t:GW etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tarage

Hi WMC. Could you please review the situation and warn User:Tarage about deleting material on a Talk Page that he himself has made thousands of contributions to? See [this]! One of us will be blocked for edit warring and I'd really rather it was him. Sarah777 (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I mean this:

(cur) (prev) 03:34, 23 June 2009 Sarah777 (talk | contribs) (97,928 bytes) (O dear! I do think Mr Ta Rage is in a rage!) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 01:28, 23 June 2009 Tarage (talk | contribs) (96,859 bytes) (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.: The topic is closed. Take your off topic rants elsewhere. I will not stop removing off topic rants, so you are wasting your time posting them.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 20:47, 22 June 2009 Sarah777 (talk | contribs) (97,928 bytes) (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.: c) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 20:44, 22 June 2009 Sarah777 (talk | contribs) (97,730 bytes) (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.: c) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 20:33, 22 June 2009 GoodDay (talk | contribs) m (97,537 bytes) (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 20:32, 22 June 2009 GoodDay (talk | contribs) (97,537 bytes) (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.: commenting) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 19:05, 22 June 2009 Cs32en (talk | contribs) (97,308 bytes) (Undid revision 297947347 by AdjustShift (talk) Erasing the comment is not the correct way of dealing with the situation.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 18:15, 22 June 2009 AdjustShift (talk | contribs) (96,859 bytes) (Undid revision 297927343 by Sarah777 (talk) Erase inappropriate comment of Sarah777.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:15, 22 June 2009 Sarah777 (talk | contribs) (97,308 bytes) (Undid revision 297863274 by Tarage (talk)WP:CIVIL applies even to US Nationalists) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 07:14, 22 June 2009 Tarage (talk | contribs) (96,859 bytes) (Undid revision 297829921 by Sarah777 (talk) Don't let the door hit you on the way out.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 02:27, 22 June 2009 Sarah777 (talk | contribs) (97,308 bytes) (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.: c) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 20:14, 21 June 2009 AdjustShift (talk | contribs) (96,859 bytes) (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.: closing the discussion) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 20:05, 21 June 2009 Tarage (talk | contribs) (96,087 bytes) (→Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.) (undo)

Of course, I'm not sure that restoring comments on a talk page can be "edit warring", but I'm damn sure repeatedly deleting them is. Sarah777 (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMC, please don't take any admin action against Tarage. He is trying hard to protect the 9/11 article. The talk page of an article is for editors to discuss how to ameliorate the article. Sarah's comments were disruptive, and Tarage erased them. Despite consensus, Sarah is trying to erase "terrorist" from the article. AdjustShift (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My advice, based on policy and experience of teh GW talk pages, is that article talk pages are for discussions of improvements to the articles. This often slips, but it is appropriate to try to maintain it. Deletion of discussion not primarily focussed on improving the article is correct. This is especially true of controversial topics that generate lots of discussion William M. Connolley. And: based on your previous comments to me [7] I'm somewhat surprised to see you coming for help without offering an apology William M. Connolley (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WMC. I was saying the same thing to Sarah, but she didn't listen to me. I also agree with you that Sarah should apologize for this comment. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMC, I came here to give you a chance to redeem yourself. You have disappointed, but not surprised me. But I don't hold grudges. If only there were more folk like me what a wonderful Wiki world it would be. Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for apologies - I am sorry, I forget about your sense of humour. Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following up

Hi William, just wanted to let you know that I logged a block you made here -in case you want to look it over. R. Baley (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your prior block/unblock

FYI [8]. Thatcher 14:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Lets see if DD has anything to say William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you offer any advice?

I'm genuinely stuck over this. Its the first time I've felt the need to request admin assistance. There is a conversation of sorts here, but I would just like someone to tell me what I should do, to avoid any further conflict. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. Without wading through the details, I'd suggest that the best solution might be to do something else for a bit and see if X gets bored and goes away William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol. ok Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had agreed that you will have 3 days of uninteruption from me. Now are you saying that you are not going to edit the artcicle?Slatersteven (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for neutral third parties in an edit war building up

Hello. I am picking on you as someone who has stepped in during edit wars before. Indeed I think you've blocked me before. I may be close to 3RR on two articles after a series of coordinated edits by User:Causteau and User:SOPHIAN, combined with a very unconstructive approach to talk page discussions. The main articles I am involved in personally are E1b1b and Haplogroup DE. I thought it better to contact third parties as I am only trying to maintain quality in these articles from a sweep of activity from "anti-Afrocentrist" edit warriors, after the recent blocking of an Afrocentrist edit warrior User:Wapondaponda for sock puppetry. When they were more evenly matched, both extreme parties used to call on me as a neutral for these exact genetics articles, so I feel some justification in saying that this current round of edits is quite deliberately trying to push an agenda. Obviously the problem is not going to go away easily, and frankly our blocked friend apparently was indeed making the articles better by keeping a balance of power with his constant reverts, but is that the only solution! Any chance you could take a second to look?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guv. Looks like a content dispute in an area where I have no expertise William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of expected that. People hate looking through these long posts Causteau writes. But actually for example on E1b1b there are only two points of debate right now, and they are both "points of order", not technical at all. That's what we need. I'll tell you what is NOT controversial, and make it clear...

1. A cited author writing about Jewish DNA wrote that a human genetic type (Eb1b1 itself) originated in East Africa, but is incorrectly called African in discussions because this misleads people about the complexity etc. The debate is because User:Causteau insists on cherry picking the sentence which says that it is incorrect to call E1b1b African, and putting this in a section concerning E1b1b origins. Any rewording to try to remove the implication that E1b1b's African origin was in doubt is reverted by User:Causteau or his newfound supporter Sophian, and he claims this would be original research. So what is needed is an opinion on whether any change of original wording is original research. Of course if my rewordings change the meaning that is another thing, but Causteau refuses to define any change of meaning in public.

2. The above-mentioned article was written in 2005, and there is also now a dispute whereby Causteau wants to specifically insert wording to say that the misunderstandings in the media continue up until this day. He specifically removes every edit which tries to say that the misunderstandings were being seen up until 2005 when the article was written.

Anyway, I need practical advice. What happens if I revert this revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)&diff=prev&oldid=298190293 (But what happens if people don't revert edits like this.) If you look at the timing of the edits and talkpage discussions, Sophian started making reverts in Causteau's favour before he even posted a question asking what the debate is about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guv. Like I said, this looks like a content dispute in which I have no interest. If it becomes a user conduct dispute, that is another matter William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was kind of thinking that a brief, or perhaps slightly unbrief, perusal may show that there are conduct issues. This is not about content as far as I can see. Also see my practical question about my own conduct.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Followed your advice so far! (I think it was good advice.) But that does not address the conflict's heart.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to be a bit more definitive, in terms of disruptive conduct can you please look at User:SOPHIAN? He is reverting in favor of User:Causteau's edits. What is this thing about reverting and then doing a second edit called "Spacing"? Possibly he thinks this makes it harder to revert him without being picked up for 3R??? His edits and comments show very little knowledge of Wikipedia norms and a blind dedication to defending Causteau's edits. But then why does he have an icon on his talkpage showing rollback rights? There is something going on here. The talkpages of the two users mentioned show the swapping of notes about how to question mainstream genetics wherever it concerns African origins. BTW I also mentioned this rollback rights question to another admin. Hopefully this does not count as forum shopping.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. You join Wikipedia, you edit by reverting and edit warring, but you get rollback privileges and apply for adminship, then between warnings you award a barnstar to someone who is basically a POV watcher and has hardly ever contributed a full sentence to any of the genetics articles he hovers over. Is this the new way Wikipedia works? I am worried. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree SOPHIAN has only been here two weeks and made almost no substantial contributions, I have just been through the whole lot. His application for adminship was closed with no votes cast and he appeared to have nominated himself for bureaucratship. He has also experimented with barnstars, inappropriate warning notices and other rubbish, but welcomed a hundred or so newbies. Personally I think he is a genuine newbie and suggest giving him a fair bit of license to learn how things work in case he starts to be productive. --BozMo talk 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice in theory, but can I quote you if I get a 3R?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SOPHIAN does indeed appear to be a newless cluebie. Rollback? I doubt it: [9]. Spacing: dunno why he does that, who cares? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:DoyleCB

Thank you. Fully endorse block. Toddst1 (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Scarlet CF

I would very much like my blanked topic ban on Cold Fusion to be reduced to a less substantial closely-watch parole, or a 1rr/0rr restricition on the article. Since being banned from the Cold Fusion talk page/article, I have made 264 (give or take) edits to the encyclopedia, including engaging in and successfuly concluding a minor dispute on Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, participating with little impact in a user-conduct RFC and generally acting as I regularly do, with a continued focus on living-persons issues.

While I have no desire to make any edits to the page, or the talk page, or, honestly, the mediation, which is being handled far better by KDP amongst others, I think that my willingness to do completly unrelated things on unrelated topics has more than demonstrated that I am fully aware I became far too attached to "winning" cold fusion, a behavior I do not intend to continue. If it turns out that I continue to fail to maintain appropriate detatchment, I welcome a re-topic-ban.

I hope that if you smack me down, I at least get some fish out of it

If you believe I need more time with the scartlet CF to appreciate appropriate detachment and wider scope, I welcome that comment. I also welcome "no, wait more." In fact, I'll take whatever you decide as the final answer. Thanks for your time, and sorry to bother. Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, I'd object to this. The occasion that took you to Cold fusion was edit June 1 edit warring by Hipocrite, and the article had been protected as a result of his gaming RfPP. I was not edit warring on June 1, though he claimed it. What he wrote in the RfPP was quite deceptive, as will come out. He was the revert warrior, repeatedly, on that article. He had, for about a month, been using bald reversion to resist improvements to the article, and disrupting discussion on the Talk page, taking extreme positions; you can see this in the edit he made immediately after requesting protection, which introduced material to the lead that was so biased not even he supported it -- nobody supported it -- when the question was asked in my attempt to find a quick consensus on version to revert to. Even though I had not misbehaved at Cold fusion (beyond hitting the 3RR edge on May 21, when I finally confronted the reversion practices of Hipocrite), I was willing to accept a ban because it was on him as well, and removed such a disruptive editor from the already difficult mix there. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bygones. Hipocrite (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to agree with Abd that the situation is not symmetrical. I will consider H's request. I've already made some comments that Abd is aware of re his position: [10] applies, amongst others. If Abd is interested in my current views on his position, or wishes to apply for the ban to be removed, he is welcome to ask. However, posts demonstrating total disconnection from reality will be removed [Note: I did remove [11]] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contrasts in tone and substance between Hipocrite's and Abd's comments in this section are enlightening. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page (just for all those watching here :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]