Revision as of 23:23, 12 September 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. 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

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)

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)

Current

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)

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)

Judge Dredd

If you think counts as a personal attack for likening you to Judge Dredd then tell me and I will withdraw it. However I thought you migh appreciate it. --BozMo talk 08:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks fair enough (you're pursuing an interesting line there). Can I have the motorbike too? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Had never heard of Judge Dredd. Now why did the title Mutants in Mega-City One make me think immediately of Misplaced Pages? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we've mined a rich vein here. I can feel a cabal logo coming on... William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking Judge Judy... much more fearsome. I'm not sure if my cabal membership is official yet, as he only states it in a "response" I haven't seen posted anywhere official. Verbal chat 18:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The cabal welcomes new members. All you need is basic sanity and a willingness to shoot from the hip (oh, and the sekret handshake, of course, but we don't talk about that) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You talk waaaay too much to be likened to Dredd :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But he never removes his helmet. Let's hope there isn't a block war. Verbal chat 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For your pleasure

I'd almost forgotten about this little compilation that I started a while ago. It seems especially appropriate lately. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

Given that this month's theme is Theatre of the Absurd, did you ever notice Atmospheric models is not simply the plural of Atmospheric model? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, but I know now. I might even help William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Optics article

I just noticed that OpticsPhysics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had self-reverted the last revert, so (as I noted at 3RRN) I'd like to request that OpticsPhysics be unblocked. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have become more complex. Best to wait a little while for a response from OP William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

IP Blocking on Gibraltar

Already tried deleting the IP comments, that was reverted as "censorship". Thats why I asked about a range block. Guess we'll try ignore. Justin talk 20:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff please? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

and and . You may need to semi-protect other Gibraltar articles as well I'm afraid. By the way, I see Pfainuk has resurrected his previous attempt to restructure the contentious text (which I still support by the way). The article could do with some improvement. Justin talk 20:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah no. Removing comments *after* the anon is blocked is quite different to doing so *before*. Regrettably, wiki rules and their std interpretation make it near-impossible to keep talk pages clean, unless someone gets blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

OK got ya, I'm guessing that any comments I removed would be further evidence of "censorship". I've made a suggestion for improvement, which may (probably not) take the wind out of his sales. Regards, Justin talk 20:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

RedKing7 and dispute resolution

RedKing7, who you blocked for a week on June 24 for violating a three-revert rule, has recently resumed his practice of making the same bold edit that I and others had sought that he refrain from doing without a consensus being formed. Please see recent changes in:

• List of diplomatic missions of South Korea
• List of diplomatic missions of the United States
• List of diplomatic missions of Japan
• List of diplomatic missions of Haiti

and others.

For some articles he is not providing a rationale, but for most others he is reiterating the same argument - the fact that a particular state does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. I maintain that it is an argument that is neither relevant nor something we are in disagreement over, but rather is relevant to the overall scope of these articles (ie do we include quasi missions or not).

I have sought to have this issue finalised for once and for all at Category talk:Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country, involving as many editors as possible, to ensure that there is endorsement for a consistent practice.

I have drawn this to your attention to:

(a) ask that you do not block RedKing7 until the matter has been resolved, to give him the right to state his case at this time (you earlier warned that he was heading for a permanent ban).

(b)provide a moderating voice if things subsequently get heavy.

Update - he has subsequently declared my request for comment at Category_talk:Lists_of_diplomatic_missions_by_sending_country#Appropriate_discussion_pages to be an "inappropriate poll". I am really at wits ends now with him...can I revert his changes without this being editwaring? Kransky (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me as though RK has learnt anything or is prepared to discuss anything. This looks to me like one of the cases where endless discussion is not going to shift anyone. If the votes on the poll mean anything, then those who disagree with RK are in a huge majority, so should just go and revert him William M. Connolley (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What about basic principles of Misplaced Pages like sources and facts? See all the sources I have provided on the relevant talk pages. But I know your style as an Admin.....Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Too many colons. I don't see anything in the above that suggests you are amenable to discussion. But what happens next depends more on Kransky, since I know what you will do William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for getting involved what is obviously an odious task for you. I am not so much worried by his "canvassing", but it is annoying to whoever receives his spam.

I am more concerned that he has refactored my talk comments at Category talk:Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country (which I reverted back at 12:01, 7 September 2009). He could have just simply have given his account of the situation rather than edit what I thought was a frank and impartial summary. I will leave it in your capable hands to decide if this matter warrants further escalation (frankly, I think enough threshold limits have been reached). Kransky (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him for repeated spamming. That should do for now. He is heading for indef if he doesn't mend his ways William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY's uncivility and personal attacks

Hello,

You may have noticed that ObserverNY has feigned misunderstanding of and then deleted your recent warning about the personal attack here: . Unfortunately, this editor has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and uncivility, as well as outing attempts, and no amount of warnings seem to do anything to change this behavior pattern (please see a discussion here: under "Long term disruptive editing leading to near abandonment of the IB Diploma page" which contains a long list of diffs illustrating my point. Anyway, as an administrator, you may want to keep an eye on this editor. Some action is long overdue, in my opinion.Tvor65 (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleteing warnings is a bad sign but acceptable. He did at least do the strike, een if somewhat incompetently William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

JohnHistory

Hi -- I see that following a 3RR block you unblocked JohnHistory (talk · contribs) with a message of "promised to be good". Well, I haven't seen any more 3RR vios, but this editor is not being good, see this diff and the ensuing talk page thread -- blatantly trolling. Would you be able to help out here? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The inital diff isn't obviously problematic, at least to an outsider. The subsequent thread was junk and is now gone, which seems correct. JH isn't doing well, but appears to have stopped editing for the day. Perhaps he'll be better when he comes back William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I was surprised since talk shows inactive. Thought you might not have seen it. --CrohnieGal 11:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the invasion of the killer sloths is on William M. Connolley (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Khatri

I saw that you issued a 3RR block, but there's one minor issue still. Some of the reverts that the user did removed {{puic}} tags added by ImageTagBot. I don't know if this is important or if the Bot will just come back and retag them, but thought I'd let you know. (of course there's also the larger issue of productive edits - dab link corrections, content etc being reverted) cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 19:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ill leave you to sort that out William M. Connolley (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Heaven and Earth (book)

The Climate change denial article says "climate change denial usually refers to disinformation campaigns allegedly promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby." Do you have reliable sources that say this book is part of such a disinformation campaign? If not, it seems to me the link does not belong per WP:BLP.--agr (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not the consensus on WP:BLPN. Verbal chat 11:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I thnk discussion of this is best centralised on t:H+E William M. Connolley (talk)

I addressed the question to Mr. Connolley and I'd appreciate hearing his answer.--agr (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks I made it perfectly clear that this is not the place to discuss this. agr: please see User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok but whats the "naming of cats" thing? We have cats on our family coat of arms (well, one on my brother's anyway) along with the legend "touch not the cat bot the glove" but I thought you lot were Mustelidae? --BozMo talk 18:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sorry to cut your words of wisdom along with the rest. Tis Old Possum, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. Best, Verbal chat 21:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to discuss your reasons for reverting my judgement about BLP issues on your talk page, but you have refused to do so. I have issued a 12 hour block for BLP violations and edit warring.--agr (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

You said "Curious as to NMMNG's role in this". Am I expected to reply on AN/WE or was that rhetorical?
If you have any questions feel free to ask me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It was more a notice that I intended to poke around in your contribs and see what was going on. I didn't find anything interesting. I have no questions for you William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

William your advice needed

As somebody who blocked me last time and on the basis of my request for a "mentor" you suggested to calm down and come back. I an calm now and trying to follow your advice as to be patient and follow the wikipedia rules.As I came back (after the ban expired) I encountered the same situation we talked about previously . The same editors as before ( Malik Shabbaz n nableezy are ubdoing my edits constantly alternating between them and without ANY justification. I already asked Mangojuice (another editor who blocked me and was kind enauph to offer help the same question.

I learned from your link that you are the authority on wikipedia therefore your feedback will mean a lot to me.The problem is not just THIS episode. As you see it repeats itself everywhere I go. The same team ( Malik Shabbazz and nobelzy are following me and undoing me in antisipation of my mistake as oin the past. As you know I can;y undo more then 3 times, but their team working together have 9 undoes on their disposal. Plus they don't justify anything- just undo it and thats itp no explanations needed. Here is my post. Can you see through and judge yourself on the issue?

I am so working on J Street page. As before Malik Shabbaz and nobleezy and Sean as a team ] are undoing me constantly without providing ANY justification whatsoever. Once again we are facing the same situation when I provide a thorough and well based arguments ]

But they working as a team undoing it. Please take a look at the situation on J street. Please read the article that talks about it

This is the quote from NYT we are discussing:

“The peril may be real. But it can also feel like a marketing device. “You know what these guys are afraid of?” says M. J. Rosenberg, Washington director of the Israel Policy Forum. “Their generation is disappearing. All the old Jewish people in senior-citizen homes speaking Yiddish are dying — and they’re being replaced by 60-year-old Woodstock types.”

J Street, by contrast, is wide open to the public. Visitors must thread their way through a graphic-design studio with which the organization shares office space. There appears to be nothing worth guarding. The average age of the dozen or so staff members is about 30. Ben-Ami speaks for, and to, this post-Holocaust generation. “They’re all intermarried,” he says. “They’re all doing Buddhist seders.” They are, he adds, baffled by the notion of “Israel as the place you can always count on when they come to get you.”

As you see he gives a very pointed reply here and it is relevant. For the issue of generational gap in this context. More then that I added this right after the centense regarding Jews and non Jews supporters ( While primarily made up of Jews, J Street welcomes both Jewish and non-Jewish members.) Why not to include that they have a diversity there? You can see clearly that when I give a point that Malik doesn’t have an answer to the other guy comes to undo it. This is very typical of this team and they are provoking me by undoing and working as a team. Please tell me what you think. All my edits are well documented. What should I do here? Please advise. Thanks William, all the best --Rm125 (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Various comments:

• Some of this may be language issues. But that is just tough. You're going to have to learn how we speak here; we're not going to learn how you speak.
• One of my pet rules is that if someone is making vast numbers of spelling mistakes they are probably going too fast. You persistently mis-spelt "Malik Shabazz" and "Nableezy".
• OK, so you say, what about substance? Weeelll... I can't undo more then 3 times, but their team working together have 9 undoes on their disposal in substance this is correct (though reverting-up-to-your-limit is strongly discouraged). So now you've realised that you'll realise that more than, say, 1 revert per day in that circumstance is just pointless disruption. You have to find another way.
• Plus they don't justify anything and undoing me constantly without providing ANY justification whatsoever - I don't think this is correct. You may not *agree* with their justification but they are discussing on the talk page. Don't use hyperbole.
• All my edits are well documented - that is good, but not sufficient. They also need to be relevant and respect WP:WEIGHT. This applies to, for example, this edit , which is why it is being discussed on talk (nb: I'm not saying it fails WP:WEIGHT; just that the mere fact of it being well documented is not sufficient).
• Lastly: you now have a history with these people. Like it or not, as soon as they see your edit, they are going to think "oh no not again". The best way to handle this is to spend some time - a week perhaps would be a start - doing purely non-controversial things in a different area.

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

William, I have a good news, I agree with you ( not entirely G-d forbid but basically and with reservations) I have some points of disagreement but I agree to disagree for the sake of our mutual agreement. Thanks for your time. I really appreciate your common sense. After all this is what I am looking for all my life. Thanks you for agreeing to be my personal couch and confidante. Recently I've discovered than nobody loves me and all I need is a shoulder to cry on (I am not going to bather you on every day basis-don't worry. I think something like twice a week will be more appropriate).In any case thanks for blocking me. You did me a great favor. I managed to get some sleep and even answered my phone messages. Unfortunately the ban was too short and once again I am here running unrestrained. I hope you understand me but if not-you are in a good company of all my family and friends.

Thanks for not answering all my questions and ignoring my desperate pleas for help. I appreciate everything worth appreciating and even more today And on a serious note-big thanks, William.

--Rm125 (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

--Rm125 (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR

I'm really sorry about that - - I completely misread the text (which is why I responded a bit strongly). I promise to make a better use of the preview button in the future.radek (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I forgive you :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Khatri page.

Good evening sir. I was like to recommend that you watch the Khatri page. A user by the name of SpacemanSpiff keeps placing the article in an uncited/unreferenced state. I go in and always place it back to its original state, with all information cited and referenced up to that point. I am requesting a block for SpacemanSpiff, if not, at least protect the page. Thanks.

--KhatriNYC (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a dispute; I don't have a particular interest in it; I'm just helping to hold the ring William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Australia

Perhaps I'm naive and uninformed, but I was previously unaware of the political lobbying and machinations of the Australian mining companies and their influence on the climate change debate. Does this have anything to do with their close relationship with China? Do you have any good sources that I can review on this issue? Thanks in advance. P.S. I believe Hawaii (where I am) imports all their coal from Australia. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Australia is a big coal producer and that has heavily influenced their response to GW / Kyoto. Kyoto_Protocol#Australia has some info; the old govt was very anti-Kyoto and even joined the meaningless Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Now Bush is gone too, that is probably dead. The new (Aus) govt is very different (but the coal industry reamins). I don't know about the relations to China but it seems very likely. I don't really have sources on this... the political lobbying around Kyoto is just too depressing for me to want to know much about it William M. Connolley (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If history is any indicator, nothing will be done until people are dying in the streets from sea-level rise, methane release, and the spread of tropical disease. As a species, we seem to lack the ability to plan for the future, and judging by our short lifespan, we are unable to see the result of our actions in this life, nor do we care about the next generation. Ignorance, and willful, stubborn ignorance will be our downfall. At this point, only the deliberate augmentation of our intelligence will save us. We need some kind of smart pill in the water supply to wake people up. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You want boiling frog. HTH. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My block

You want to explain why you blocked me yesterday when I was the one who stopped edit warring and reported the issue? Was your decision influenced by Piotrus' comment to the report? I don't get it. -YMB29 (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained your block. P's comment had nothing to do with it William M. Connolley (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is what you wrote:

I've looed at your AN3 report and the page history. You have 3R, B has 2.

You meant looked? So I have three and he has two? You don't count the one by his friend (or even maybe sock), and you don't count the one he made on 6/15/09, when he reverted to his version on 11/03/08 (he deleted 31 intermidiate changes)

You think B should be blocked for edit warring; logically, therefore, you think you should be too.

Logically it does not make sense. I did the right thing and reported it and I get blocked myself. Why did I even bother then?

And you said too, but he did not get blocked.

So it looks like Biophys goes unpunished because his admin friend put in a good word for him? You tell me what is going on?

-YMB29 (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The revert from June is far too long ago to matter in considerations of edit warring. No, I didn't count the one by his "friend". And if you want me to consider the possibility of it being his sock, you'll have to provide some evidence. Reporting an incident does not confer immunity on the reporter William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You still did not explain why you blocked me and not him.

If he made a sneaky change in June and I caught it now, why can't I restore the changes?

When I did that he and his friend started reverting back, and because I did not want to restart the edit war from last year, I reported it, and now I know that I should not have bothered...

Do you at least acknowledge that his June revert was irresponsible and that I have the right to restore changes made by me and other users? -YMB29 (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You thought 2R deserved a block. As far as I can tell, he thinks no such thing. I've already told you: changes in June are prehistory. Whether his June change was irresponsible I have not the slightest idea, because I haven't looked at it. As for making changes: you and anyone else has the right to make changes, whether they were made in June or not. But you don't have the right to edit war. If you are in doubt, stick to WP:1RR William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well see that is the thing; you did not even look at his June revert. Prehistory or not, that still explains why I had to make some changes.

And how come I get blocked for 3R? Bobanni, if not a "sock", is a clear "teammate" of Biophys in this case, so their reverts should count together.

If you took a closer look at that article's history and talk pages, you would see who was starting the edit war and who made POVed changes.

As far as 1RR, I tried multiple times to talk to him (again you can check the talk page), but he fails to carry on a discussion. -YMB29 (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Plimer's H+E book

FYI, since you asked, fwiw...

At this point, I rather regret assigning myself the role of Plimer's defender -- we're in the same line of work, and he's well-known & well-respected in economic geology. I haven't read his book, and certainly won't buy it -- it seems pretty clear that it was a careless writing job, and that he's (likely) a combative blowhard. Nevertheless -- Plimer deserves NPOV & BLP-compliant treatment, and isn't (in my view) even remotely a Climate change denier. Ah, well. Plus that Ratel guy really rubs me the wrong way.

"Fewer scientific problems are so often discussed, yet so rarely decided by proofs, as whether climatic relations have changed over time." -- Joachim von Schouw, 1826.

Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't offended, actually.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to say to his geology. I agree he deserves NPOV and BLP. I disagree that you are giving him NPOV, and re CCD - that is exactly what he is. "a careless writing job" - no, you are evading the issue here and excusing deliberate error. This is like Durkin faking his graphs in TGGWS and people saying "oh dear he made a careless mistake". I think you are deceiving yourself, probably out of respect for his geology role William M. Connolley (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you read (or skimmed) his book? I wonder how much of the stuff you see on the web is cherry-picked. Mind, it may be representative... (I hope not). Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Free message for William - sale ends soon

Where do I claim my free massage? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean message not massage, right? :) Can we renegotiate, William? LOL , Look I normally don't give away massage for men-this is not my style… but for you...since we belong to the same club and you are my private couch and closest confidante and since I like your chutzpah... I promise. if you come to LA you can get a fancy one from me. You are lucky-it so happened that one of the fanciest massage parlors here owe me. So hurry up get you afdgss to LA- you got yourself a deal!

BTW you still owe me ( remember the “b_stard:”issue? Can I post it on his talk page please?This is important to me and I will fight to death for my principals.  :)

P.S. But if I am lucky and you mean a message I will be happy to post it on your talk page :)

--Rm125 (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you *do* misspell quite a few things so leave yourself open to my low humour. Not as good as the "global worming" I saw on usenet many years ago William M. Connolley (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am all for it. I wellcome any kind of humor especially pointed to me. Not only I don't mind I wellcome and insist on it- and the "lower" the better  :) I think it is time for people here to lighten up a bit.. as to misspeling -I try to use a word processor and to my defence I use a 10 inch notebook and my only right finger is thick. Plus sometimes the light is not so bright in the room and there is some reflections from street lights and...( I have more excuses but I will use'em next time.. --Rm125 (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wheeeeee....

...yow! What a show. And I thought it was a straightforward case, silly me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well no - you were right; it *was* a straightforward case of a bad block, and the right thing happened - I was unblocked before I noticed I was blocked. After that the traditional refusal to recognise reality set it. Interesting lack of parallels to arbcomm. Looks like agr has run away now William M. Connolley (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Your ArbCom userpage comment

I know that you were disappointed by the conduct and results of the case, and I'm sure you're aware that I voted against most of the remedies proposed against you and share some portion of your feelings. However, I respectfully suggest that calling one of my colleagues a "fool" on-wiki is not helpful. We all accept a great deal of criticism and commentary as par for the course in connection with serving as arbitrators—just as you have as one of our active administrators on contentious topics—but I always still think it's better, and more effective, to stay away from the overtly ad hominem. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you've found it :-). And while you are here, thank you for your votes. I am indeed deeply disappointed by the conduct of your colleagues; and I regret having to disappoint you now. Arbcomm are big boys and girls and can cope with some discrete criticism of their actions. Moreover, you (arbcomm, I can't recall how you personally voted) established the principle that users are entitled to insult a blocking admin as much as they please on their own talk pages; I'm sure you'll extend a similar privilidge to those who desysop people William M. Connolley (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I should add that there is a diff there justifying the appelation. I regard the extensive comment re the cabal as being grotesquely stupid. However this carries no implication that is the most foolish thing that particular arb has done in this case William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is entitled to insult anyone here William. If arbcom has passed some sort of rule the "entitles" users to insult a blocking admin(and I seriously doubt they have) then I would use good sense and ignore such an "entitlement" as unproductive. Chillum 14:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? Are you certain of your ground here? Suppose someone were to call the arbcomm "liars" or "lying bastards" or "ridiculous" or "devious" or compare them to a third world Junta? Do you think that would be actionable? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be rather poor judgment. Just because something is not actionable does not make it an entitlement. Chillum 17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the arbcomm's decision permitting this, I entirely agree with you. However, until they are wise enough to revoke it (and alas I fear we will have rather a long time to wait for wisdom from them) we are stuck with it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked to see which arb was accused of being a "fool," but am curious how would "Stephen Bain should not be entrusted with anything more valuable than a ball of string" would be received. I'd like to know before I say that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

This individual, which I believe is also this Anon and this Anon has been either adding contentious wording or removing any and all references to Kurds. Just thought I'd let you know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I also posted a warning on Boyzboyz20's talk page concerning the removal of a picture and was told this, Misplaced Pages is not your private site,you may be an anti-turk but wikipedia is an objective platform. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW do I have to suffer from constant threats like this? Thanks.

]

--Rm125 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What was the point of your post of 20:11, 12 September 2009? I can't see how it helped. You are both dredging up old sores and it just isn't helpful. Forget it all. Concentrate on improving the article. And if you must discuss these issues of threats and old scores, please don't do it on the article tlak pages. They have nothing to do with the article. Take it to N's talk page - and spell N correctly, it is insulting to care so little that you can't be bothered to spell his name properly - or possibly take it to WP:WQA. But better still take my original advice: address the content, not the contributors William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like worst is coming to worst...

And I'm sorry to see you go down like this. Thanks for all the good work you did over the past several years. It is appreciated. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 22:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

By the discerning ;-). Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom has basically put science-oriented editors on notice with this case: even an inaccurate suspicion of collaborative editing is enough to make one guilty. So if Editor A says all the recent CO2 rise is from natural sources, and Editor B responds saying no, the isotope ratios are all wrong for that; and Editor C says no, the change in N2/O2 ratios are all wrong for that; and Editor D says no, the ocean carbon measurements are all wrong for that, then it's Editors B, C, and D who are the bad guys. We may as well hand over the global warming articles to GoRight and Cla68 and Scibaby, hand over the pharmacology articles to the New Agers, and so on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The team nableezy-Malik Shabbazz are erasing discussion pages- impossible to communicate

]

they just erase talk pades as a team- tot only regular articles. Is it justifiable. Look you asked me to consentrate on the article but they constantly erase my work as a team

Look from Sept 10 to today. Look what they are doing. Is there any way to investigate it?

]

One one hand the erase my work as a team on the other hand they refuse to discuss and ERASE my discussion pages. How can you win against this team. But please, William don't tell me to relax and lay back- this is nor right.

--Rm125 (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)