User talk:William M. Connolley

	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.
	I've decided to start an "article in need of attention of the week" (or day, or month, depending on how many come along). The first one is suitable for septics and greenies alike: Runaway climate change. Don't discuss it here; do it there. As an alternative, pointless rumble of the week is Fred Singer.
	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 actions Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions

The Holding Pen

Secret trials considered harmful [Well, you might hope so]

Well, I've read the evidence: general impression is that this is revenge by DHMO's friends for his RFA failure. Why? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And now I've read the judgement. And it seems to me that arbcomm has run itself off the rails. It would seem that they've got themselves infected by the bad blood from DHMO's RFA. So:

• Given the sanctions, which are more humiliating that restrictive, the case was clearly non-urgent.
• There is a good deal of interpretation and selective quoting in the evidence. I don't see any eveidence that OM was given any opportunity to respond, and that is bad (looking at OM's page, I think this response [1] from arbcomm [FT2] is revealing: when asked directly if OM was given the chance to respond, the reply is weaselly).
• I'm missing the result of the user RFC that obviously the arbcomm insisted on being gone through first. Could someone point me to it?
• Could all these people please get back to the job of deciding the cases validly put before them, most obviously the G33 and SV/etc ones

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever the actual substance of the complaint: I'm deeply concerned about ArbCom (or unspecified parts of it) trawling through a years worth of contributions, selectively quoting parts that support a certain point of view, assemble all this into a large document, and without further input from the user in question or from the community issue an edict from above. And for good measure they (?) declare a priori that an appeal is possible, but will be moot. Well, maybe it's acceptable because, as we all know, the committee is infallible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I admit, my prior opinion was that arbcomm is generally slow but usually got the right answer. In this case, I'm doubtful. BTW, I'm almost sure I had a run-in with OM once. Can anyone remember when/where? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In case you have not yet noticed: This seems to be deeper. [2]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy @#%$! I was wondering how all of them took leave of their senses at once. R. Baley (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

!?! That looks bad William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this some sort of hallucination?????? WTF??? BTW, you did run into me, because you blocked someone in a manner that I felt unfair. When I found out you are/were one of the "good guys" on global warming, I had mixed feelings. Now, I feel safe that you're watching over the article, especially since Raymond Arritt is gone.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This whole notion of "good guys" and "bad guys" is a seriously poisonous and harmful way of seeing fellow contributors. It encourages the worst excesses and does not lend itself to reaching consensus with the dark side/evil ones/whatever. Orderinchaos 16:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I like to think that the people reverting vandalism might be considered "good", and the vandals "bad". Perhaps thats a bit too old-school, and you prefer a more nuanced approach? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking William's interpretation of good and bad editors. However, I consider NPOV vandals to be vandals too. Yes there is a nuance to all of this, and that's the problem. It's difficult.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So whats going on?

Most discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Orangemarlin and other matters, it seems.

Presumably someone will be along to sort out this car crash at some point. In the meantime I've been trying to see whats going on, and I've found...

• As we know, KL has repudiated FT2's postings [3]. But [4] rather suggests that secret proceedings were indeed going on.
• tB has "temporarily" blanked the page [5], which is nice, though not as good as "permanently"
• Jimbo has weighed in, saying basically "I haven't got a clue whats going on" [6]. Later updated to the Arbitration Committee itself has done absolutely nothing here [7], which does rather suggest FT2 acting alone in acting, though doesn't address discussions.
• CM is cryptic [8] turns on the interpretation of "formal" in "formal proceeding", a semantic point that is not vacuous
• JPG says its miscommunication [9] and begs for patience [10] but confirms the secret case [11]
• FN thanks us for our patience [12] as does Mv [13]
• Jv appears to endorse FT2's version, adding the OM case to those recently closed [14] and posting the result to ANI [15]. How does Jv know this is the will of arbcomm? And interesting question, which I've just asked him, and which he is studiously ignoring.

Other arbs appear to be far too busy to deal with trivia of this type.

So its hard to know what *has* happened. But clearly its not just FT2 running amok, or the other arbs would say so. My best guess is that secret trials (discussions?) were indeed in progress and that they are too embarrassed to admit it; and that there is some frantic behind-the-scenes talking going on to try to get a story straight.

• CM [16]. The statement is bizarre and is going to leave a lot of people (including me) unhappy. It looks like "it was a regrettable miscommunication, please don't ask any more questions" is going to be the line.

William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC) & 20:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What stuns me is how any arbitrator thought that allegations of uncivil behavior (however true) needed to be urgently addressed in a blatantly out-of-process manner while a case of full-bore socking by a repeat offender, resulting in high-profile articles being locked for weeks, was allowed to languish. Hopefully the committee realizes they cannot put the business of Arbitration on hold to focus solely on this drama, and will continue the voting. - Merzbow (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, still baffled by that one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like the official line is it all ended happily ever after [17], nothing to see, move along here William M. Connolley (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And FT2 is terribly busy [18]

Hmm, so... it all ended happily ever after and everyone forgot about it? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten. Who knows if it will happen again or is happening now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FT2 is back secret activities. I can't believe it.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

This arbitration case has closed and the full decision can be viewed by clicking the above link. Both Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) & yourself are indefinitely prohibited from taking any administrative action with respect to Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or edit wars in which Giano II is an involved party.

Furthermore, please note that the temporary injunction in the case now ceases to be in effect.

Regards, Daniel (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbcomm at its worst: a feeble wimp-out and a waste of everyones time. But thanks for letting me know William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm here: 2008-10-02 Block log); 23:08:48 . . Moreschi (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (c'mon, for Giano this was very mild, and we can't bully people with blocks into writing more kindly). Apparently [19] is not incivil; and we have an explicit double-standard for G William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Current

Scibaby

When blocking Scibaby, you really do need to file an RFCU and have a checkuser come in and (1) drain the swamp of any other socks, and (2) and long-term block any IPs he's used. Otherwise, more socks pop up and it becomes harder to retroactively undo all of their edits (because there are more interevening edits). Raul654 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Normally I don't bother. Will try to remember in future. Are you standing for Arbcom this time? Please do William M. Connolley (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to stand for arbcom - I really, really want to wrap up my phd in the next 18 months and that really does cut into my Wikipedia time. If I were to run, I'd end up being idle most of the time. Raul654 (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Its a shame. I think they need some help, and some solid competent people with bottom William M. Connolley (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"some solid competent people with bottom"????--BozMo talk 14:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Jack Aubrey sense William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley was inducted into The Hall of The Greats

On January 2, 2009, User:William M. Connolley was inducted into

The Hall of The Greats
This portrait of Robert De Niro was dedicated in his honor.
David Shankbone.

William - famous scientists is one area I have ignored, and one reason we likely have never crossed paths. I dedicated this photo of De Niro for all the work you do on this important area, one I am of no use to, but one where even I know what good work you do. --David Shankbone 02:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you very kindly, and apologies for taking so long to respond. I'll have to live up to it now William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

These dedications are for the totality of edits already made. You wouldn't need to make another contribution, and it would still be just as appropriate. Of course - keep editing; we need you! I wish I had something more suited to your area of work, but I thought De Niro was a good compliment. Who doesn't like De Niro? Happy New Year. --David Shankbone 20:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock Puppet "Donaldstrumpcard is Rob Mitchell from Tennessee

Donaldstrumpcard = "Rob Mitchell" from Tennessee. If you want to read more about him, here is the link http://gothicchess.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html

GothicChessInventor (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If I had to make an educated guess, it is "Just to clarify" who is Rob Mitchell who is Donaldstrumpcard

GothicChessInventor (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed Trice article

Hi,

Is there anything more you can do about the COI-ridden edit war that is the Ed Trice article? We still have GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs) and the mysterious Octogenarian 1928 (talk · contribs) constantly hammering home blanket reverts. Any advice/intervention appreciated! Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

EJ has blocked GCI for 24h for WP:COI, which will hopefully bring home to GCI that we really do mean at least some of our rules. Meanwhile, O1928 is mysterious but, I would now guess, probably a real person. His latest revert [20] doesn't look too serious. As to advice: keep up the good work, I'd say, especially your exemplary efforts to work this out on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

After returning from a wikibreak of a couple of years I've been having a look round some contributors whose work I used to admire and I'm pleased to see you're still going strong. So here's a barnstar for defending the absolutely crucial topic of climate change from the utter bullshit that gets hurled at it by Wikipedia's less informed souls. You are a huge asset to the project and you must have the patience of a saint. Keep up the good work! — Trilobite 03:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC====)

Thanks for the praise; and welcome back yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You are being unfair

Lawrencekhoo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawrencekhoo has reverted dozens of edits in the wage slavery article, and broken the 3-revert rule many times (see it for yourself!), why doesn't he get blocked??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityForever (talk • contribs)

Because you can't be bothered to list his reverts? Seriously, for a strict 3RR vio they have to be withni 24h. See WP:3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Goldberg

Finally! I welcome your intercession on this article. Actually, as you'll note, I requested it!! Editors Tom & Mark Shaw persist in deleting my legitimate additions to the "Criticism & Controversy" section of this article. If you check the log you will see that their reasons are either wholly capricious, or they leave no reason whatsoever. What has become clear from looking at their previous contributions, and their prior 3RR warnings, is that they are both extremely politically partisan, and abuse their roles as editors to further their partisan agendas.

Here's the bottomline. The article is a bio of a living political author/commentator who leans to the far right. He has written several books attacking what he argues is the hyperpartisanship of the media on the left. That's fine. But then I add a rebuttal from a notable member of the media who attacked the author/commentator for what he argued were blatant misrepresentations in his book. What's more, he pointed out the specific quotations where he compared what was written in the book with the actual transcripts of the events described, to prove the misrepresentation.

I added the transcript of his broadcast where it belonged in the article: under the "Criticism & Controversy" section. I included it verbatim and without editorial commentary, in its entirety to provide the complete context, and sourced and linked it to video of the actual broadcast. That is all.

But because the editors in question are unhappy with his comments, they consistently delete the entire passage. Not edit it, mind you; not open it for discussion or consensus - but simply delete it. This is consistent with past practices for both editors, and both have been disciplined for this behavior in the past.

It really is as simple a question as: Should Wikipedia be used by its editors as a mechanism for furthering those individual editors own transparent, and politically partisan agendas? 68.183.246.93 (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may, please: where else is this issue being discussed? I'm aware of this: [21] and of course the discussion on the article's talk page: [22], but it seems that 68.183.246.93 is referring to discussion in some other venue. As a principal, I think I should be involved or at least aware. Thanks! Mark Shaw (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming Lead Re-write

Hi - I noticed you've been editing the lead section for global warming. As mentioned on the talk page, there is a re-write of it going on at User:Enuja/Sandbox, so if you could transfer your edits over there and help with work on it, it would be very much appreciated. Awickert (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed. Best of luck with it. My observation is that sandbox re-writes rarely work, though you're welcome to try. Please don't rely on me to xfer stuff, though. I'll watch William M. Connolley (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - I'll transfer references: would like your feedback, though, on the final version before it's up. Awickert (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stick with the sandbox, or your edits may be partially or wholly reversed. Please note also that if you don't like elements of an argument, or citations within it, you should make selective changes rather than stripping out the whole argument. People are likely to get annoyed if you continue to do this.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I replied on the article's talk page. Hopefully you'll understand. I believe William M. Connolley had good reasons for removing it, some of which are the same as I had for tempering it in the sandbox. Let's continue the discussion on the talk page. Awickert (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you have a look in the sndboax so you don't feel the need to addressively edit our work when we post it pleaseAndrewjlockley (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW sorry for accusing you of a bad faith edit, albeit for about a minute! I didn't realise your were a long-time contributor to the page.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Donaldstrumpcard is not a sock

I am in contact with User_talk:Donaldstrumpcard via private email. Yes, it was a SPA to counter some of the disappointment on the web with the low quality of the Ed Trice article (which I've been working with Oli Filth to improve), but the owner of this account is a genuine person and not a sock. Yes, he engaged in disruptive editing and I am explaining to him Wikiquette so he doesn't do that again. Please unblock the account or explain why the account shouldn't be unblocked. Just to clarify (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Check User Singer and all that

Please see my remark here [23]. Have I missed something or did this guy just self declare as a sock puppet? --BozMo talk 21:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh lord, not the Singer cesspit again :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Danced the mess around a little William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Runaway climate change

Surely I will regret saying this but why don't you have a look at runaway climate change and see if you can improve it? I know you have strong opinions. Please use a scalpel, not an axe ;-) Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I admire your bravery William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

All your comments have been actioned or commented onAndrewjlockley (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

More commented than actionned, I fear. I'm not going to argue over detail. That was a sort-of test to see how reasonable you were going to be, which you failed, from my perspective. I think we need to sort out the major question of definition first; details can come later William M. Connolley (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you perhaps being a bit too personal here? I've addressed all the concerns you've highlighted, in the best way I could see to do so at the time. If you think my work needs further improvement, please do point it out. I appreciate your continuing demands for academic rigour, and the time you devote to making them. However, I think that you've often been a little cavalier in your editing of others' work, and it could be argued you've been a little casual with things like merge procedure. Please do carry on testing editors' work to make wiki better, but please try and be respectful of edits and of editors when you do it! ThanksAndrewjlockley (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. You've "addressed" my concerns, but not in a way that I found acceptable. As I've said, on talk and AFD, I think the fundamental problem is that we don't know what RAC actually is William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Runaway_climate_change#Rebuild so I can work on it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected

I'm just notifying you that I fully protected Oj, svijetla majska zoro for a week. I figure this will give them a week to discuss things. I saw you blocked each of the offenders for edit warring so I decided to drop by and make sure you were aware of my protection. Also, you seem to be more familiar with the case at hand so if you feel it would be better, you can unprotect the article sooner than one week without any objections from myself. Thanks and happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've decided to try unprotecting it, and watching it carefully, and threatening people with a big stick, to see if that helps William M. Connolley (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Callendar Effect and historical context

Yeah, I think one of the things we're bad at doing is accounting for historical aspects of a subject. The term is not in use any more but it probably has a place somewhere in the historical context. There's a recent discussion germaine to this here. --TS 17:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm with C: Age of the Earth *should* include historical context of how old people thought the earth was William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 2

Provisionally scheduled for February 28. Comments welcome, & seeing you there even better! Dsp13 (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have come last time but I forgot. Maybe I can do better this time William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

septics

In the top of your talk page, might you have meant "skeptics"? : ) Awickert (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[24] :-)

: ) I thought there might have been something to it! Awickert (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought it had connotations to a famous Singer ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

H0 scale

Hello, I have removed the protection you added to this page as it was not actually making any difference to who could/could not edit the page, so to reduce confusion and to stop it appearing in logs. Pages on the English Wikipedia can only be moved by autoconfirmed uses with current software settings. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

OK William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor conflict help

Hello I'm not sure if you have any authority to officially warn editors but if you do I'd appreciate your help. I refer to the talk page for : 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. I don't know anyone with admin privelidges, so I would appreciate if you could talk to User:Wikifan. Esspecially his accusations of Anti-Semitism which are wholly unnapropriate. I don't know if your the one I should come to with this? Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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: [25].

If you search the webb for CSS you will find countless examples and tutorials. Quick Googling turned up this for example: [26].

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)

Incorrect accusation of 3RR

Please remove your 3rr rule warning from my talk. The edits I've placed were CLEARLY UNIQUE and each was in SPECIFIC response to criticism, including your own. I am working to get an agreed version of the section through, and that's entirely in accordance with protocol. The worst you could accuse me of is bad editing. Further comments on my talkAndrewjlockley (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, you had your chance William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi, William. I have mentioned you on ANI, here. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Seems to have lead to a regrettable and rather suspicious conclusion William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are wildly jumping to conclusions there. Viridae^Talk 03:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I've twice asked you if you were contacted off-wiki over this, and you've twice obfusticated [27]. The obvious conclusion is that you were, but for some reason don't want to admit it. If you dislike the conclusion I've drawn, please simply answer the question. But it would be even better if you would show basic politeness William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think ducked would be a better word than obfusticated and I would tend to always think cock-up more likely than conspiracy but I agree with you that the block overturn was an error. Perhaps we should put it down to a bad day and move on. --BozMo talk 13:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it really have to be spelled out for you? I was not contacted off wiki. I thought that was pretty clear when i said "I came on this matter by way of the ani thread". You know it is far easier to assume good faith and not jumpt to conspiracy theories. Viridae^Talk 21:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has to be spelt out; and answering simple questions with simple answers is best. You have finally done so, which is good. You still haven't apologised for overturning my block with no discussion for invalid reasons; but that's another matter William M. Connolley (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi William. I was going to post objecting to your block without a warning, until I saw the length of the user's block log. (And no, FWIW, no one asked me to come there.) I would insetad only urge you, when dealing with users in good standing, to always warn before blocking when 3rr has not been breached. Fair? IronDuke 01:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand you. D was warned [28] but chose to remove the warning [29] rather than alter his behaviour William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course he removed the warning - it was a warning given by an automatic tool for something he was nowhere near close to breaking the rules on. You would have to. Viridae^Talk 08:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean "you would have too"? The point is, (a) he was warned and (b) his removal of the warning mislead IronDuke. The latter is ID's problem not D's, of course: I agree he has every right to remove warnings William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If I might be so bold ...

I notice that you seem to be fussing with the layout of this page, but seem dissatisfied with your current results. I would be happy to provide some assistance in that regard if that would be helpful and if you can describe what it is that you are trying to achieve. --GoRight (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindly meant offer. But I regret that I am unable to take it up William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling

Hi William; you may have misinterpreted my earlier edit (which you have reverted), thinking I was vandalizing or the like. I was actually just calling attention to the word "septics" in the red box at the top, where you talk about your "article in need of attention of the week" - I think you actually meant "skeptics" (or perhaps "sceptics"). That's all. Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew what you meant; I was trying to draw your attention to the "secptics" heading a few above here William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hah! I didn't even see that; I'm hoist by my own petard. Mark Shaw (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hymen

Do you have time to peek at this editorial dispute? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If its still tehre when I get back from the pub. Mine is languishing too :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Dear William

IP # 125.17.14.100 once again broke the three revert rule on February 4. Please see the Puthandu Page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puthandu . He continues to be disruptive. He does not use the talk page to resolve the content dispute. Please help.--MrinaliniB (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning removal

I understand your point and I don't indent do disput it by reverting ([30]), but could you look at the case and consider if the warning shouldn't be issued? That user has a history of stalking and harassing Polish editors; at the very least, his reporting of this case was biased, as he reported only one user (one with whom he has disagreed with several times in the past).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)