Revision as of 07:14, 18 April 2008

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

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

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

The Holding Pen

Linda Hall editor

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

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

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

User:Reddi apparently back

... with another sockpuppet KarlBunker 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Your query

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current

anti-Americanism

We can use a little guidance and help. If you can please drop by. Igor Berger (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

State terrorism and the United States

Can you delete Allegations of state terrorism by the United States so we can move the Beast back to its home..:) Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Errm, its a redirect, is it doing any harm? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Supergreenred

I've tried talking to him, but he won't listen. He keeps deleting any messages I leave on the talk page to try to present a different POV or just get him to calm down. Hopefully any admin who reviews his unblock request won't be fooled by his removal of them. John Smith's (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And putting a note of it here won't do any harm :-). I was close to protecting his talk page to restore your messages, but thats probably unnecessary. The obvious corollary re the talk pages is that 24h is not going to cool him off William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Protests to your recent deletions at the U.S. and State Terrorism page

There have been legitimate protests to your mass deletions at the U.S. and state terrorism page. I suggest that you read these objections carefully and not skim over them. Personally, I consider your actions disappointing with regards to both your admin status and the wikipedia project as a whole.BernardL (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh, so admins aren't allowed an opinion? William has simply been bold, much like other users have claimed. John Smith's (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read the protests, and I think they mostly miss the point. The article is too long, and there is large amounts of material that can be moved (or already is in) sub-pages. People are getting upset because they think this is somehow degrading the importance of this article, or downplaying the role of Yankee Imperialism. This is wrong. So, I urge you to try to edit to actually improve the article, rather than "protest" reversions which really don't help William M. Connolley (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You know I've seen longer articles on movie stars and TV shows. I am not saying the article shoud be mammoth in propotion, but maybe some editors have valid consers. We should have like 5 examples in different countries at the top of full text, and 5 at the buttom of summaries with links. The part that describes what is terrorism can be a small summary with a link to the sub article. Get read of some of the links at the buttom. Make the article astetically presentable. Change the title back to what it was! Igor Berger (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Im here to notify you of an ANI thread I started to review your conduct, which I think is a blatant case of the worst admin abuse I've ever seen. As one of your victims, I don't want any one else to suffer like I did. I will stand up to any attempt to bully editors to affect content of the article.Supergreenred (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you've been informed, good. I want to hear what you say about this. I approve of cleaning absurd amounts of unrelated material from such articles, but it shouldn't be done by editing through protection without prior discussion of the sort that happened before the Liancourt Rocks soln was implemented. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is not about editing through protection, but about removing material. If you want to help the article, please do: go to the talk page. There is excess stuff on an over-long article that should be in sub-pages, and in several places duplicates material that already is William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You have. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Emanuel's BAMS piece

WMC, I'm wondering what you think about updating Effects of global warming to reflect K. Emanuel's conclusion in his recent article that there is some uncertainty in attributing increases in tropical cyclone intensity to global warming. I know we both reverted the Scibaby sock's entries involving it, which should have been reverted regardless of poster for weight and sourcing issues (the Chronicle's article blows it way out of proportion). However, since the BAMS article was an update to Emanuel's previous work, which is cited in the Effects article, it probably merits inclusion, but I'm not sure how I would word it concisely. It doesn't say that GW has no effect on intensity, just that its effect still has some uncertainty tied to it. Jason Patton (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. My usual position (which is very hard to keep to) is that its best to let the science settle for a little while before it goes into wiki. Ideally a bare minimum would be 6 months to give others a chance to comment. Thats probably hopeless though. In the meantime, a brief 1-ish sentence mention would be my preference William M. Connolley (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Travb

Started a thread on AN/I to review your block: . I could possibly have the rule wrong, however I asked other admins to review you blocking some one you were in a content dispute with. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing an article you protected

This series of edits () seems to be seriously problematical. Could I have your take on it, please? Black Kite 23:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I *think* that you're trouble making. If you have some other purpose, do please explain more William M. Connolley (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)