Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:44, 15 July 2009

Beware the Flag of the Rouge admin!

I'm busy on the river and may not respond swiftly to real life.

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.

I tend to remove pointless chatter on this page. If I've removed your edit with a summary of "See the proverb for the year at the top", this is the proverb I mean. If I've simply rolled back your edit, it is because I've told you this before and am now bored with you. Sorry: it it up to you to be more interesting. I live in hope that some people might read and think about the quote from Hobbes, above.

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

Dispute resolution, Bible style: If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
— Matthew 18:15

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]

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: [4] 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 [5]] 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]

Current

CF topic bans

[Trimmed. See [6] and [7] for details William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Reviewed: [8] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, looking back at the ANI ban review, I still think that it would be better to simply send it again to ANI to confirm that the community supports that the ban is indefinite pending review (because some people, including the closing admin, appeared to think that it was just a review of a one month topic ban). --Enric Naval (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge meetup 4

Starting discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 4. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSS site

Forgive the quick note, but I happened to notice the comments at the top about CSS, and some places to learn about it. I second the site mentioned, but also take a look at the CSS Zen Garden at [[9]] - it's a great place to quickly see what CSS is capable of doing. Basically, it's a site where people take the exact same HMTL page, but use a different .css file, and completely change how the page looks. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CC

I've just noticed climate change has accumulated lots of cruft, not to mention a distressing number of obvious errors. If you want to help with cleanup that would be great. BTW you may be interested in this. Boris noticing climate change have bourgeois excess and provocations. Duty is assisting heroic efforts to institute reliability. Basis for new five-year plan here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo. What happened to the Russian accent? It is about time I actually did something useful for climate articles instead of attracting flak for blocking people. OK William M. Connolley (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spiffing William M. Connolley (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wapondaponda yet again

Hey William. Wapondaponda's back with yet another sock. Cheers, Causteau (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009-07-05T23:41:47 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs | block) blocked Emperius scrooge (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here is his latest sock. Causteau (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear; and it looks like he has created yet another one as well. He's again canvassing other pages for support specifically with regard to the Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe article, just like he did with his User:In the government sock. Cheers, Causteau (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! But was the User:Harvey_Gustav sock also blocked? It's him as well: same user page look, articles visited, familiarity with editing right off the bat, he even quoted the exact same passage from the exact same brand new study as Wapondaponda to advance the exact same argument (example: "A higher-resolution analysis (Fig. 1c) reveals a distinct gradient of Bantu-related ancestry from west to east across Eurasia..."). Causteau (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That too William M. Connolley (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think another dormant wapondaponda sock has just awoken [10]--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiscribe is a sock puppeteer. See [11]. It's very concerning that the victims of his abuse have been banned. I hope the situations will be corrected promptly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:LisaLiel

Now posting as Lisa (talk · contribs) - is she still under the restrictions described here [12]? Because if she is, she is due a block for (at least) her activities here [13]. I asked her on her talk page and although she has edit since she has not replied. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "editing restrictions" link you gave me is just a link to your message William M. Connolley (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Sock

Lombolombo yet another Sock of Muntiwandi The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Griffin yet another Sock of Muntuwandi The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice again

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Thank you.--Caspian blue 02:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Who do you think User:Jay Waxman is? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same person as User:Dimitri Yankovich? Mathsci (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Thanks for your response. I replied here. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha. I have just worked out what you mean by THE template ...
I think I am in the wrong place.
Can you please advise which is the "right" place to get advice on dealing with a user who likes to edit war, and pays no attention to wiki ettiquette? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If yo want *advice* then you can post to WP:AN3 talk page, or to the talk of individual admins active in that area William M. Connolley (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

again PRODUCER

Hi William!

Regarding to this: [14]

It seems to me that PRODUCER does not observe at all what his actions mean. This were the names of the holidays in English (I did not know their names previously so I inserted them yesterday).I don't know how to explain the actions of him (since he has not explained himself!- for 1000th time!!) in this situation but like vandalism. These content was not even matter of dispute.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, this looks like a content dispute to me. Summaries like removed vandalism by PRODUCER are about as unhelpful as his total blank summaries. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

79.97.98.207

Hi. This user is repeatedly attempting to remove pertinent information from the plus-size model article. He has previously been blocked. KameraObscura (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Also, he is engaged in a growing edit war on both the Torrid and Hot Topic articles, attempting to introduce subjective negative terms in place of established industry fashion terms. KameraObscura (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've both broken 3RR there. You're both blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian Race Debate

Hi.

I am curious about whether or not there can be a more fair handed remedy to dealing with the Ancient Egyptian Race Debate article. I read it a lot, view the updates and I contribute sporadically in a way as to present insight that is unarguably merited. However, until I master the use of citations, uploading copyright safe pictures, I am in a way hampered. I feel the Ancient Egyptians were black. But despite that, I understand the article is about describing the controversy. What is very unfair however is that there is some push to make it appear that an entire side of the issue is engaging in sockpuppetry and what not. I had not been contributing hardly until a few days ago, and lo, on my page is an accusation of this. (I mainly view the article, and skim the talk page). What I'd like to know is this: Can you provide an even handed way of handling this issue? I feel that we are administered to death in the article by the other side who wishes to simply silence the notion (even to making it appear it is a fringe debate, or not even debatable at all) that the Egyptians were black or were of a black Nilo-Saharan origin. Even if you disagree with the conclusion, it's certainly debatable as even the first archaeologists had concluded that they were a black race. Can you please offer some balance to this on the article. One reason I do not contribute too much is because I have seen how other users are simply administered by zealots who find ways to use the Admin system itself to silence people like me. Please do your part to end that. --Panehesy (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is very unfair however is that there is some push to make it appear that an entire side of the issue is engaging in sockpuppetry and what not - if you've been watching this, you'll be aware that one user has been very actively socking. That makes those that agree very closely with that account automatically suspect.

As to the issue itself: this is clearly a matter of dispute on wiki. I have no opionions myself (I haven't even read the page) but am merely trying to help hold the ring.

William M. Connolley (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK which user? The only user that I notice that was cited for sockpuppetry is User:Wikiscribe that I have had frequent clashes with. That is the only example. I don't agree with him. I agree with you, the issue is clearly a matter of dispute, but the article is to cover the dispute itself. I keep seeing contributors try to make it a referendum against Afrocentricism, a related issue, but not so related that the issues are interchangable. So what I have done now, that I am banned, without even the courtesy of the process beforehand, (I told you, as my edits are more effective against the POV pushing) I have submitted an arbitration to have Ice_Cold_Beer removed from administration of the article. If you are holding the ring, can you advise on how to fairly administer the article? The only admins involved are working on behalf of one POV. --Panehesy (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice: Blocking of User:Dimitri Yankovich

Sry, but I have serious doubts if blocking someone just because he "looks like" a sockpuppet is ok. You may have notice that I left a comment to your statement on the "Ancient Egypt" talkpage. I now raised this issue on the admin noticeboard. No insult intended, just serious concerns if this is the proper way to handle sockpuppet suspicions. Gray62 (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't see the talk comment. Raising it on ANI is fine, if you're worried. I see you've had the obvious answer William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: MataNui44

I've told this user several times since July 2, 2009 that he must provide a source regarding the edits hes making to the article Disney XD. He still refuses to.--Lamborghini man (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009-07-10T04:24:58 Jayron32 (talk | contribs | block) blocked MataNui44 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (Edit warring: This time on Disney XD. Repeat offender.) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shen Kuo edits

Hi, I'm PericlesofAthens. I am the one who nominated and passed Shen Kuo as a featured article. I have reverted your recent edits to Shen Kuo. To be honest, I am rather perplexed by your decision to excise entire paragraphs that had clearly cited sources (i.e. Chan and Needham) about Shen Kuo's conclusions on climate change over time. Since you did not provide a source that could be used as a rebuttall, I have reverted your edits. If you have some concern about this that is grounded in reliable sources, please make your case known on the talk page.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see, you just created a section. Hold on...--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Dream Pool Essays#Geological theory. There's a paragraph there that Chan did not include, one that Needham translates and quotes in English. It is, moreover, the instance where Shen Kuo provides his ideas about petrified bamboos and climate change.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best done at t:SK William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikiscribe Blue toothed kangaroo (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wapondaponda....--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiscribe is a sockpuppeteer. See [15]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're right. But BTK is a sock William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What WMC,you accuseing me of having split personality or something [rm - WMC], you think i am making up socks to defend people who got banned not through any action of my own i might add?????I did not even push for a ban against the editors in question but i agreed with it 100% thats about it.Oh by the way you might want to check this as well ([16])sometimes things ain't always black and white,though CoM is engaging in the same behaviour as a sock just did not 2 seconds later and you don't raise a brow,come on now, and my sockpuppet case is attached to my user page [rm - WMC] --Wikiscribe (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also CoM is trying to pepper the banning admin[17] to end the fringe editors ban because of my old sock puppet case which had nothing to do with the article in question right now, i repeat i did not push a case against these editors to be banned even(that makes sense to you),i just agreed because of my past experience and the article outcome--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down old chap. I'll say again: your comment at ICB's page A few things CoM if you accuse me of being a sock please ascribe me a sock first makes no sense. CoM has said you're a puppetmaster, which is confirmed. Your response should just be, "but I don't do that any more" (assuming it is true which I rather hope) William M. Connolley (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMC ,what i was geting at with my previous comment was if somebody suspects me of sockpuppeting thats fine, i am a target its on the record from a past snafu,but what i mean by "ascribeing me with socks ",is a sockmaster needs socks and if somebody is saying i am sockpuppeting who would be my sock accounts??Now if CoM would have made a special little section that stated i suspect wikiscribe has been socking at this article i suspect him of being ,this account that account and this account etc etc that would make sense i.e if i suspect somebody is a sock i will say i think this account is a sock of this account and explain my rationale,but just to make a thread that says"sockpuppeting going on by wikiscribe"and simply put a portal to an old sockcase that has zip to do with to do with the article in qustion is poor rationale for doing that, it seems CoM does not really suspect me of doing that but it seems to be just a trolling effort in toe with wapondaponda's socks(like below).Oh also thanks for removing that label i did not know i could remove it--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No... socking is *not* SNAFU - please don't try to minimise your serious violation of the rules, it can only look bad. The reason that you are getting wound up by all this is that you made an error that stains your character, and provides a stick for people to beat you with. As I've said, your only solution to this is to stop getting annoyed, and to simply state that while you did do it before your have not done it since and that it is of no relevance to the current situation. Assuming that is true, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kompolompo

editing Talk:Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) which is semi-protected by you - I didn't think he'd done enough edits to get back the protection, and he's an obvious sock - I noted User:Akhilleus pointed this out elsewhere but didn't act upon it. I don't have time today to act either. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done by A William M. Connolley (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be happy?

I wanted to ask you something, why are you being so harsh to MataNui44? He might have been edit warring, but The Rouge Penguin (and others) started it. You must not have seen the history of Penguin's edits and reverts. They are for his gain, not factual accuracy. See what you are doing by blocking MataNui44 is rewarding bad behavior. It is like the police shooting a murderer's hostage, and letting the murderer walk away. Stop Penguin. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what you mean. How am I being harsh to MN44? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm talking about is your full attention on blocking MN44, while Penguin runs free and breaks rules. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 (talk | contribs | block) blocked MataNui44 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Edit warring: This time on Disney XD. Repeat offender.) - is that what you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. The only reason I can see that he was even involved was he was and has been coming up in defense of the articles the edit war have been fought on and over. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eccentrics

[Text from banned user removed] Earl J. Redneck III (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on your talk page, if you are interested in discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration, you are a party.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#William M. Connolley (2nd) and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Abd (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me William M. Connolley (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is deleting everything posted by socks necessary on talkpages

Noted you've had some interplay with User:SOPHIAN concerning the sock puppets of Muntawandi. I am a bit concerned that he has taken it upon himself to act to delete even old postings on talkpages, which of course makes talkpages hard to follow. This sock puppet was not a simple vandalist and often played a role in debate, whether good or bad, so there are entries on the talkpages which were part of on-going discussions. (Frankly, just looking at edit quality and contributions to debate the sock puppets are far better for Wikipedia than SOPHIAN.) Deleting them makes old discussions make no sense? Wondering if is really normal to go back and select talkpage materials to delete. A secondary aspect of this, which might confuse the issue, is that some of these deletions are being remarked as being done in order to avoid copyright violations (deletions of maps), but I am quite uncertain as to whether this is appropriate in these cases at all. (I note admin Dougweller perhaps watching this). SOPHIAN's edits are more generally often given bizarre comments, and the ones that are not obviously bizarre often have nothing to do with the edit being performed. Attempts to get clarifications on talk pages are consistently failing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbing out all old comments would be inappropriate. Which did you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have mentioned. SOPHIAN's contributions to talkpages are not frequent, but all "interesting", so I thought it was simplest just to point in this direction. I can fully understand that no one wants to go through these edits. Just a few examples, until my fingers get tired, and yes some of these will possibly be other types of problems than the one I mentioned, and not tidied up. Sorry:-

[18], [19], [20], [21],[22],[23], [24], [25], [26](this within minutes of telling a few admins), [27], [28]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first just removes a warning from his talk page. Thats a different matter. The second removes a block of text, but that seems fair enough, since it hadn't become the subject of debate William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a lot of different types of deletions here. Difficult to look through it all I know. This was only a sample. I still recommend looking through the contributions page as a better way to get an unbiased sample.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development

I hope you're all looking at the ill-conceived Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to put WP:BURO up for deletion. As with "adminship is no big deal," it has degenerated from being a worthy ideal to being a bad joke. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship is no big deal died a fair while ago. BURO is still a worthy and useful ideal William M. Connolley (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wage slavery

Could you take a look at the article Wage slavery, An editor has (in my opinion), been possessing the article for a while. Several other editors have tried to engage this person positively.. and with every return that person User talk:99.2.224.110 seems to intensify in their approach. That person seems to be abusing the talk page with focusing on other editors instead of content, and returning edits that are against the discussion consensus [29] Thanks, skip sievert (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editwarring accusation

I am not sure whether you should block me for my editing,or just blocking the other party of editors?Give me a 1000 justice for blocking me please.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 06:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WMC, I'm not sure what's up with this user, but anyway he has started edit warring again (pogrom thing [30], and a new thing [31][32]). Leaving you a message here as per your instructions at AN3. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're behind the times: 2009-07-13T08:34:48 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs | block) blocked Ksyrie (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (edit warring at July 2009 Ürümqi riots) :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't even check; sorry about that! I did notice that he's reposted the stuff to his userpage, but I don't think it's really a violation (POV-pushing is allowed in userspace), just annoying :P. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Hi. I am tring to make sense of what appears to be a huge mess. I am hoping you can at least answer one question. Of all the people who have edited the article or talk page over the past couple of months, which editors are established (e.g. by checkuser or a preponderance of evidence) sock puppets? And are they all sock puppets of one user, or more than one user? I assume the one user is Muntuwandi but if there is more than one user can you tell me wich sock-puppet gos with which puppeteer? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 02:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a giant mess. My recollection is that all the socks are of User:Muntuwandi, although when I was there they were effectively socks of User:Wapondaponda, the same person. Doubtless someone watching will correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't seen any evidence that User:AncientObserver, User:Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka, User:Wdford for example, are socks William M. Connolley (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while you're here: my feeling is that the best thing to do with that page might well be to delete the whole thing and start again. Opinions? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right ... but I am not an expert on this and would rather see good faith editors talk it out and come up with a plan. The main problem as I see it now is, there are a number of editors who are currently in an antagonist relationship with dab, but these editors do not constitute a homogeneous group, some have otherwise made very constructive edits, and some have not.

Today (14th) I left a lengthy comment that is currently at the bottom of the talk section for the articl. It lays out my own view of how these matters should be handled. Id very much appreciate knowing whether you agree with me or not (and if not, of course, why). Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin incident

In fairness, you should be aware of this. Yaf (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since 3RR reports are now evidently called "snide whiney" comments by admins, such as here and are apparently ignored anyway if the POV push is towards a certain POV direction, it's time for me to retire from Wikipedia. I no longer feel it is worth my time to waste any more time attempting to encourage NPOV in articles. Yaf (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer of help.

Thanks for the offer of help to sort this mess out, I accept [33]. This is a daunting problem, going on for several years, so hopefully you have your eyes open as to how deep it goes.

The bottom line here is that for several years I have watchlisted and edited on 'firearm' related topics. I am deeply committed to the core Wikipeidia values WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and I have stepped up and vigorously defended these values on 'firearms' topics in the face of intense personal attack. Very often this boils down to a conflict between what individual editors believe to be truth, and what is found in the balance of the reliable sourcing. I take pride in the fact that I have actually sat down and read many books on this topic, from the full spectrum of POVs, and then try to apply what they say to the articles.

As basic as that sounds, it often comes into conflict with editors who either simply "know" the truth, or who base their truth on reading just the literature of the advocacy press. The trouble with firearms articles is that a high number of editors come there with "you can take my gun from my cold dead hands" entrenched values. Some editors view firearms advocacy work at Wikipedia as being good for the firearms advocacy cause because Wikipedia is influential on court clerks, even at the Supreme Court [34]. In the case of Yaf, there is a long history between him and I, including his careful monitoring of my edit pattern and his repeated quick reporting me for blocks. I hope you don't get your sysop privileges revoked over this grudge. I try to avoid edit warring, but you must be aware that the difference between edit warring and collaborative editing can be a gray line, especially on articles with heated POV push wars like the firearms topics. I very much prefer collaborative editing, but that editing environment is sadly missing from firearms articles. To that end, I would like to hear your advice, and/or to accept your help to bring a collaborative editing environment to the 'firearms' type of articles. (If possible.) I have tried for a very long time to achieve collaborative editing there, with a very limited amount of success. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Given this is a long-term problem I doubt it will be resolved quickly. I'll have a poke around. What in particular would you point me at? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate

Is this. Please do not do that. rootology (C)(T) 20:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're an involved party, and you should leave it to the clerks to deal with. We're admins, we are required in official functions like things circling RFAR cases, especially where we're involved and in risk, as you are, to not do anything of the sort. I know you're often liberal with all sorts of stuff, but you should cool it in a big way until this is resolved. You're going to get a TON of negative evidence laid vs. you, for things like your reversions of criticism of you on ANI threads, incivility, and 'generous' tools use. Admins have been desysopped for less. You don't want that. rootology (C)(T) 20:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why aren't you leaving it to the clerks to deal with? I'm sure you mean well, but your intervention here doesn't seem to be helpful. Try Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Addition of_parties_to_a_pending_RfAr William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gedanken experiment: What if Abd gave a party and nobody came? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there would be an excellent if lengthy explanation William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Rootology - you shouldn't raise a fuss about the appropriateness of William's edit, when you misuse rollback in the very next edit to the page. I don't see any evidence that Hip is a party to the RFAR, so removal of the notification doesn't strike me as a big deal. Using rollback to edit war though - that's clearly inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

warned — Rlevse • Talk • 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. You are suffering from the familiar "false balance". Abd has been told to stop adding people at random. Meanwhile, are you planning on warning R as well? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you disagree, you should stay out of it as you are a named party in the RFAR. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Abd randomly pulls names out of a certain body part, we may soon run out of admins that can do something about him... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that you aren't planning on warning R. The arbs and clerks need to keep order on that page, and have been failing to do so. I see that two members of arbcomm are already pleading with Abd for no more walls of text, ho ho William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have complained about Abds's posting walls of text since (at least) his 2nd failed attempt at RfA back in Feb 2008 (see opposes). I don't know whether it is contempt for the wiki-community or a lack of communication skills which prevent him from editing more harmoniously -could be both. . . or something else. Either way he's gone to a lot of effort to create a battleground here. R. Baley (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy walls of text, batman! I didn't know about that one. A close shave, or rather not, thank goodness William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you really reverted critisms of you from ANI? If so, why? Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 380: / Line 380: @@
 :::::: Holy walls of text, batman! I didn't know about that one. A close shave, or rather not, thank goodness [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley#top|talk]]) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 :::::::Have you really reverted critisms of you from ANI?  If so, why? [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 23:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
-::::::::Do you still believe that it's OK for your to threaten to out editors who you disagree with, Cla?  If so, why?  [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 00:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)