Revision as of 14:36, 6 August 2009

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. If you're wondering about 3RR, you can try /3RR. 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_tag_and_Cascading_Style_Sheets-The_Holding_Pen-2009-02-03T06:39:00.000Z">

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: .

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

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)_tag_and_Cascading_Style_Sheets"> _tag_and_Cascading_Style_Sheets">

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

Reviving Misplaced Pages: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 {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Prog taskforced?Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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. 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."

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Removing the Scarlet CF

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)

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

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: 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 ] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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

Current

CF topic bans

and for details William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]

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

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)

Cambridge meetup 4

Starting discussion at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Cambridge 4. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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 ] - 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)

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)

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)

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

Reclosed a 3RR case

Hello WMC. I've reclosed this WP:AN3#User:Michael H 34 reported by User:Slp1 (Result: 24h) as an edit-warring violation, since the user continued to make the same change on 27 July, after your previous closure as 'Stale' on 24 July. User participates on Talk but clearly does not have consensus to include the Sacks and Thompson reference. He could, of course, follow WP:DR to get wider opinions but prefers to revert. Let me know if you disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That is fine by me. Sorry for the late reply - I've been away William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wage slavery

• Mr3003nights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wage slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any way you could intervene with this person who seems to use multiple accounts to return to Wage slavery in a very disruptive way? Could you also refer to this in that regard

3RR complaint about NeutralityForever

3RR complaint about the IP

ANI complaint about the original sockpuppetry

The IP's block log

Block log of NeutralityForever

Block log of Entresasix

Protection log of Wage slavery. - skip sievert (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI the matter has also been proposed at User talk:EdJohnston#Return of problematic_editor. In my opinion, the views of at least one other admin are needed, or a proper SPI filing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know nothing of this and have been away. Is the issue still live? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that User:Mr3003nights (a.k.a. NeutralityForever a.k.a several others) has been a long-term POV-warrior on this article. The creation of the Mr3003nights account gives us a new opportunity to warn or block for abuse of multiple accounts, but the real annoyance is persistent long-term flogging of a point of view that has gained little or no sympathy on that article. The account continues to edit regularly on that article, as recently as August 3, and his edits don't seem to be supported by anyone else (though I haven't read the entire Talk page). Rather than a new sock filing, the most reasonable step is a yes-or-no decision on an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm yes. OK, I'll put it on my watchlist and see what it looks like in future William M. Connolley (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

High Tides (Non-Wiki Question)

Hey, I think you're into this sort of thing. Have any opinions about the unusually high tides the east coast of North America has been seeing? Sounds pretty interesting. OlYeller 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no idea - first I'd heard of it. I agree, there is no chance this is global SLR William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

augh

I'll admit I didn't really assume good faith about the Abd arbcom given some recent actions of yours, but after reading Abd's posts on the case I've done a complete 180. He is even more annoying than Giovanni33. Jtrainor (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah well I'm glad you've seen the light in the end :-). Lets hope it isn't an oncoming train William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your block of User talk:83.41.235.163

You blocked 83.41.235.163 (talk · contribs) for 3RR and incivility last night. It turns out that he is David Rohl, livid (his word) about the article about him. You might want to look at Talk:David Rohl. I have a tiny bit of sympathy for him, rapidly diminishing, but so far as I can see he needs to refrain from editing until this IP block is over, right? I think this might get messy if he keeps up with this attitude problem. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Karađorđevo

čeha has explained this here

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ThaddeusB#Kara.C4.91or.C4.91evo --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, well that is nice. I've lost touch with all this, mind you William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Sorry, it's the first time I had to report such a behavior, I did not even know at first where to report it. What did the report needed to be more clear ? Hervegirod (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see now that I had to use the template for reporting. Hervegirod (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thats it. Sorry for the insults, but I see a lot of poor reports there. Ironically, for simple ones, it doesn't really matter because I'd ignore the report text anyway. We just want to make sure you care enough, so we make the report format slightly fiddly :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will know how to do it for next time. However, I hope I won't need to report 3RR another time (for this user or another) ;) Hervegirod (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Information-Line

Hello William,

Thank you for blocking user Information-Line, but I can't find it in the log? Also my apologies for not requesting it on the the right page. Normally I'm an active user and moderator (=sysop) on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, so this was my first time requesting these kind of things over here. Cheers, Jeroen (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, but http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:BlockList&ip=Information-Line shows it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

On the present talk page there are atleast 7 members supporting my POV. According to WP:CCC consensus should not be a reason for reverting edits.The source I provided is scholarly and peer reviewed.( Not that I am planning to edit the article again but I think that using consensus without any valid arguments as a reason for preventing edits is wrong. )--Gnosisquest (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like you have agreement to me William M. Connolley (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

They tried to add the same material but were rejected for one reason or the other (which implies that if a reliable source is found supporting this view it can be used.)Anyway if I ever plan to edit the article I will do so after informing you and mentioning my view on the talk page of the article.--Gnosisquest (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR at Krugman

Oops, my mistake I guess. Sorry. I have been doing some heavy editing on that article, as far as I know, according to consensus. I didn't think about 3RR. BTW, the last revert I did, the person I reverted left this message on my talk page in response:

Oops I hadn't meant to add the bits about Krugman encouraging the housing bubble back in. I think I may have been working on an older version of the article in one of my edits. Sorry about that. I see you've taken it back out.

Anyway, sorry about forgetting 3RR. However, isn't there a 3RR exception for removing undue negative material from a BLP? Anyway, I won't touch that article for a while. Thanks, LK (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gates article

I replied at my talk page, but in case you didn't watchlist it, here is my response:

I see nothing here that says anything about accusations of vandalism. According to WP:Vandalism, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is, hence my assertion that his continued reversion against the clearly stated consensus is tantamount to vandalism. According to WP:Vandalism, it is. From where I'm sitting, your falsely accusing me of violating WP:NPA is the same as how you perceive my warning Viriditas against vandalism. I'm sure the irony doesn't escape you. Have a pleasant day, and I sincerely wish you luck if you wish to wade further into this issue. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I read your reply. I maintain my warning William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I civilly request a retraction of my warning. I was warned for "accusation of vandalism". I warned the person reported on their own talk page against edit warring. You specifically state that you didn't get into the diffs enough to figure out if the person reported was edit warring, but saw a big mess and protected the whole page. Then you came and warned me on civility. Note I am not even making the same defense as Wilhelm above, but that my statements to the user were regarding edit warring, which was noted by several other users in the discussion, which was reported and which was apparently never fairly adjudicated since no one looked at the diffs. We are all being punished for one bad apple. Further, blocking a page from editing when someone reports a specific user for specific incidents could possibly lead to people being hesitant to report unruly bad apples in the future because they want to use the page. Manyanswer (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your warming remains. You have made some errors in your comment: you were warned for seconding a warning of vandalism , not edit warring (I would not have complained about the latter). I did not protect the page, and I am unsure why you think I did William M. Connolley (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no line break between the page block notice and your sig. Sorry if I misread that. Your error is thinking that I seconded the vandalism charge, when I seconded the statement "Please stop your disruptive editing" and then clearly talked about edit warring as I thought that was the appropriate charge. Manyanswer (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a quote from the block log. You'll see the blocking admin in there. You "second that" was ambiguous at best. However, if you are clearly stating that you do not and did not accuse V of vandalism then I will withdraw my warning William M. Connolley (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not intend to accuse him of that and will happily state so. I tried to focus my comments on edit warring and I'm sorry if there was ambiguity. That said, given Wilhelm's further clarifications I'm on the fence over whether or not it actually was vandalism. The user is perseverating and consistently bringing up that he "doesn't recognize a clear consensus" because he alone doesn't agree. Then he goes and remakes his edit. This is after amazingly long discussions where he rejects every argument and remains the only voice on his side. We try, but one can only go so far. I do understand why you wouldn't want to wade through all that text!! Manyanswer (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I will further add that the user in question has been blocked for edit warring within the past couple of months. Manyanswer (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant to your civility warning William M. Connolley (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And how do you justify calling my valid warning of vandalism a personal attack? Have you seen Viritidas' multiple instances of edit warring, assuming bad faith, POV pushing and harassing other editors (diff)? Honestly, I have no beef with you, and I would have no beef with Viritidas if he would stop gaming the system and start actually playing by the rules. If he would work with consensus there would be no problem to begin with, but his constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments do not nullify the stated consensus of ALL the other editors of the article. He just keeps reinserting his own POV in direct conflict with a strong consensus which, after multiple warnings (which he has opted to erase off his talk page), does constitute vandalism, per WP:VANDAL. Before you respond, you may wish to review the following diffs: Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are failing to distinguish vandalism from content disputes. You are (incorrectly) using vandalism to refer to edits that you don't like. You have referredme to WP:VANDAL, but you obviously haven't read it. Under "what is not vandalism" it clearly states "Disruptive editing or stubbornness" William M. Connolley (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Read it again, from the beginning, please. I have even quoted you the relevant passage from, I believe the third paragraph. It has nothing to do with edits I don't like. It's repeatedly reinstating the same edit against the clear consensus of all involved editors. That IS vandalism. It's right in there. Please, read it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, won't do (is it a personal opinion? Who says so?). That is from the summary. You'll need to find text from within the body of the policy William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you saying, 'No, you won't reread WP:VANDALISM'? Now you're just being silly and obstinate! How can you pass down a judgment about a policy without taking the time to review that same policy, even after it has been quoted to you? Do you think I just fabricated the quote I provided? Last time I checked, everything on the WP:VANDAL page is 'the body of the policy' and stuff that is 'a personal opinion' is on the talk page (WT:VANDAL). I still have not heard your defense of citing NPA, however. You don't get to just come marching through making up the rules and not even taking the time to read anything! The last thing that is needed here is more hasty action. I strongly urge you to take the time to thoroughly review the whole situation (I even provided you the diffs) and review relevant policies before intervening. Intervening without doing so is not helping anything, and does not speak well to your role here. Once again, what part of WP:NPA applies? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you read it wrong. "won't do" means "what you have just said is not acceptable" William M. Connolley (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And please follow the diffs and adjudicate the edit warring charge fully (from a third person, not even Wilhelm or I). If you adimittedly didn't bother to do so, you're judging something a content dispute instead of a clear consensus violated by an edit warrior without even looking into the facts. If it's a clear consensus violated by edit warring, I think Wilhelm is right that it counts as vandalism. There are several other editors on that page who clearly said "we have a clear consensus, with one (loud) opposing voice". And yet he inserted it yet again. There is a poll, and he was the only vote against. Please at least look. Manyanswer (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Blocks are (all together now) preventative not punitive. Traditionally, once a page has been protected it is highly unusual for anyone to be blocked (see the case of GoRight just yesterday) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant to the appropriateness of your warnings was my point. Also, see above that I did meet your standard for withdrawing my warning and would like you to do so. Manyanswer (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is irrelevant to my warning William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree to disagree, but I humbly request that if you don't follow all the diffs that you refrain from handing out warnings. Thank you sincerely for your clarification on mine. Manyanswer (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Request denied William M. Connolley (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I support William M. Connolley's position here. This is a content dispute. People should not use the word "vandalism" to describe the position they oppose in content disputes. WMC is reading the policy correctly, in my opinion. That part of the policy is, in my opinion, intended to apply to a situation like this: a new user adds a paragraph to Barack Obama beginning "Actually, Obama is the worst president we've ever had because ...". This is not that type of situation. Please read the whole sentence of the part of policy you quote, including this part: "however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW". An administrator can very often recognize that a content dispute is a content dispute and usefully take action such as protecting a page etc. without having to read every nitty-gritty detail of a disorganized, involved discussion. If you want to make it clear that there is rough consensus for one version, I suggest setting up a poll, displaying concisely reasons for each version; then an administrator or anyone else can tell at a glance if all but one editor support one version. There is normally no need to go back and analyse past editwars (e.g. if they've stopped because the page has been protected). (Sorry, WMC, about my previous post: I realized it was lame when I posted it; I was following my standard practices, which need to be tweaked.☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Coppertwig, for providing a clear and well-reasoned argument as to why WP:VANDAL does not apply. In light of this, I will concede that this instance of edit warring falls outside WP:VANDAL and that my warning, as it was stated, is invalid. I do hope that others involved here can see, however, that it was made in good faith and was not in any way a personal attack. Again, I reiterate that a vandalism warning, even a false accusation, even one made in bad faith, is not a personal attack. Certainly a good-faith, if erroneous, vandalism warning does not merit a tit-for-tat warning. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the poll and if you follow down the user in question states about 50 times that polls do not represent consensus and that he doesn't recognize the consensus. I don't care if this wasn't vandalism. It was edit warring plain and simple. If you have suggestions to us for how to deal with an editor who follows up on this poll by bringing it up ten more times, perseverating and reinserting his edit 3 times every 30 hours, other than blocking the whole page, that would be constructive. Right now our takeaway is if we report him we get dumped on and our page gets blocked. Manyanswer (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with you (though I emphasise that I haven't looked at the poll in question) as a general point. On the protection issue, I personally prefer not to protect pages in dispute but to block whoever was edit warring, pretty well to avoid the frustration you now have. However, this doesn't look close to the situation where I'd overturn another admins decision: your recourse in this case is to try to persuade the protecting admin that this was the wrong decision. Don't get too hopeful though. As to Right now our takeaway is if we report him we get dumped on I have no sympathy at all: the only dumping you (ie, you and Wm) got was for the vandalism accusations; now resolved in your case. And I'm sure you didn't mean to write and our page gets blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I've just started /3RR. Be aware it is incomplete William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sympathy and the noble effort going forward. I do see your point about the warnings being separate. I plead that I was "flummoxed" by the other issues. Manyanswer (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind?

Semi-protecting the usual target, he is back. O Fenian (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, another 2 weeks William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Krugman

We've got a WP:BLP violation involving defamatory information against the subject. An Op-Ed is being used to cite this claim. You'll possibly see this on the 3rr board from Vision Thing. Scribner (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm generally not a fan of blocks where discussion hasn't been given a chance to work. But Scribner's behavior with regard to that article has been disruptive for some time now, and his efforts to get administrative action against anyone who doesn't see things his way is disruptive. This content:

According to The Economist, in 2003 Krugman was ranked as the second most partisan American political columnist, behind only Ann Coulter. The Economist concluded that Krugman gives lay readers the illusion that his personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory. ref The Economist, Face Value: Paul Krugman, one-handed economist /ref

is clearly not defamatory. A discussion of whether the article should be trimmed of content sourced to op-eds (including Krugmans') has been going on for some time on the talk page. But hysterics and edit warring against several editors by Scribner has not been helpful. Other sources also discuss Krugman's partisanship, so it seems to be notable. A discussion of how best to phrase and source it should take place on the talk page of the article instead of through proxy wars seeking Admin intervention. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight is one of the editors pushing this edit on the Krugman article. I've filed a RFC on article talk page but the tag is outdated and I don't know how to update the request. Request assistance. Scribner (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In the context of PG's boldness and fame, I don't think that is really a BLP violation. He is a big boy. Whether it belongs in the article or not is another matter. Why not instead quote What is beyond dispute is that Mr Krugman is the finest economist to become a media superstar—at least since Milton Friedman or, earlier, John Maynard Keynes turned to journalism. Mr Krugman's work on currency crises and international trade is widely admired by other economists. He holds the John Bates Clark medal in economics, which is slightly harder to get than a Nobel prize. As for popularity, his new book, “The Great Unravelling”—his eighth aimed at a broad, non-academic readership—has spent eight weeks on the New York Times bestseller list? Discalimer: his blog is on my google reader list; not that I actually read it much nowadays William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt: if anyone tries to claim BLP exemption from 3RR for removing this text, I think they will fail. They will if I'm judging it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to including: According to the economist, "Mr Krugman is the finest economist to become a media superstar—at least since Milton Friedman or, earlier, John Maynard Keynes turned to journalism." Seems reasonable. The other bits quoted are I think excessive and covered already. As far as "pushing" anything, I only restored the economist bit after I removed it accidentally and received a courteous note from the editor who added it. I don't know if that particular wording is useful, but I think note of his partisanship is probably worthwhile and noted in several places (such as the Newsweek article). ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It was just a random quote. We'll see. In the meantime, I see the inevitable has happened at WP:AN3 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Quick

As you can see from the talk page for Quick, steps were taken to address sourcing on this matter, and other editors previously involved have been consulted. The right steps have been taken this time to address this situation, and you are curtailing a proper resolution.

If you believe this needs some dispute management, please recommend that rather than freezing the page for a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk • contribs)

Please learn how to sign your talk posts. Better, get an account. As to the substance: on the talk page I see you asserting that your edit is fine. I don't see anyone agreeing William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Signing my posts or getting an account isn't really germane. And I have provided sourcing, rather than assertions.

While it's early to see anyone else even commenting, never mind agreeing (or disagreeing) yet, I do offer this from a conversation with another editor:

"You have my apologies, IP single purpose account. You have my blessing to reintroduce the previous marriage information, though you will likely still have to convince others. You might open a section on the talk page and make the step by step explanation...." User:Syrthiss 12:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk)

Signing your posts is a matter of politeness. It is rude not to do so William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WMC, would you please explain further your reason for blocking User:162.6.97.3? You said "incivility and edit warring." Was that for edits to this page? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, you appear to be wikistalking WMC. Why are you doing this? Mathsci (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, you appear to be wikistalking both WMC and Coppertwig. Please explain yourself. (Edit made merely to illustrate the absurdity of it all.) --GoRight (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not wikistalking. WMC, I'm sorry if I'm bothering you. That is not my intention. This user talk page got onto my watchlist somehow (well, because we were having a discussion earlier) and has been attracting my attention when I look at my watchlist. WMC, if you let me know that you would prefer it, I'll shift my attention elsewhere except for watching for replies to this thread. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:162.6.97.3

WP:BLANKING clearly allows for a user to remove old warnings and block notices, and I'd previously told this anon as much. Please explain what reason you have for restoring them and protecting the talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 22:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It allows a *user* to blank their talk page. Anons don't "own" their pages, for the obvious reason that any number of people may use that page, so no one person can be allowed to blank it. I note your ref, disagree with it, and will discuss there William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand!! More than one person may be using the page; so the one deleting a warning may not be the person the warning was addressed to. The warning needs to stay there so that if the original person comes back (whether under the same account, or viewing the page while logged in under a different account) they can see the messages to themself. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, WMC, what was your reason for changing the block to indefinite ? Apparently the IP account did no edits between the original 24-hour block and your change to indef. Also I thought IP accounts were usually not indef-blocked since they may be used by multiple people at various times. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously your right to disagree with it, but I very much disagree with your enforcing the opposite of what the guideline clearly states. Change consensus first, then block IPs for doing things you don't like. --Onorem♠Dil 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I decided I didn't like the guideline so I changed it (though I did ask first). We'll see who bites. I agree with your comment though William M. Connolley (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet

I thought I let you know that this disruptive user has another sock, actually it is the original IP address this person used at the very beginning of all this disruptions at Rebecca Quick, 76.114.133.44 (talk · contribs). I filed a report on this in the past linking 76.114.133.44 as the sockpuppet of 162.6.97.3. Also not that it’s really any of my business, but I noticed you put an indefinite block on 162.6.97.3, but a one-week block on 68.50.128.120, which is the same person. I was just wondering...how is it that this person you indefinately block is allowed to edit a week from now on another IP, essentially evading the indefinate block you imposed on him? KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I gather the indefinite block was a slip of the mouse, IPs should rarely be indefinitely blocked. –xeno 13:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've reset it to 3h as of now William M. Connolley (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Appears nobody told you that you're being discussed here. Rgds.    7     05:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks like the same old sock to me; I've blocked it William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No prob - got your back. They keep on coming, don't they...    7     07:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Titles

I hope you don't mind my asking instead of reading through the MOS page, but I'm wondering about the policy regarding titles. I've seen that we avoid Dr. and other titles, but what about academic titles? In this edit as an example , is that the norm or is it more encyclopedia just say professor with a lower-case p? I have my own preference based on the version I think is most uncluttered and clear, but I wonder what the standards are if there are any. Thanks. If you want to direct me to read the MOS that's okay too. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Krugman's title at Princeton is "Professor of Economics and International Affairs". The title shows his research interests, not what he teaches. In the same way my friend Graeme Segal was Lowndean Professor of Astronomy and Geometry at Cambridge. Note the capital letters. Segal did not teach astronomy. Mathsci (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you've got a sec

Pls del Chicago Music Promotions‎ and block the spammer... I've tagged and reported, but he is removing the CSD faster than I can revert.    7     07:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I missed my chance: 2009-08-06T07:56:33 The Rambling Man (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Chicago Music Promotions" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (view/restore) but I blocked the account William M. Connolley (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thx.    7     07:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)