Revision as of 00:50, 26 September 2007

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 & I'll go take a look. 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. If I've blocked you for 3RR this applies particularly strongly: your arguments for unblock, unless for some odd reason particularly sensitive, should be made in public, on your talk page. See-also WMC:3RR.

In the dim and distant past were... /The archives. As of about 2006/06, I don't archive, just remove. Thats cos I realised I never looked in the archives.

The Holding Pen

Atmospheric circulation pic

Thanks for the pic you added to this article. It's very interesting, and I am intrigued by some of the anomalies it shows. Denni☯ 01:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Denni. Thanks! All part of my very very slow atmospheric dynamics project... more to come... slowly... William M. Connolley 22:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC).

It's wonderful to see something more the standard oversimplified depictions of the hadley/ferrel/polar cells. Did you create it or find it somewhere? I'm hoping to find one for July 2007 to see if there's some correlation to the heat wave in Montana/Western North America. http://en.wikipedia.org/2007_Western_North_American_heat_wave Thanks, Dansample 18:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Its created from ECMWF data. I don't think we have July 2007 back yet... in fact we only have till 2001. You could use NCEP data (not nearly so good, I know) and draw plots online: William M. Connolley 20:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Trend estimation with Auto-Correlated Data

William: This article you started is a great topic! I am just wondering if you have detailed information to add to the section about auto-correlated data. I am facing this problem now, and am trying to get information from papers and textbooks. --Roland 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, IMHO what to do with auto-correlated data is an ongoing research topic. Top tip: divide the ndof by something like (1+ac1) (or is it ac1^2...) if the autocorr isn't too extreme. There is some formula like (1+ac1^2+ac2^2+...) if its strongly auto-correlated... but... its a bit of a mess, I think. Err, thats why I never expanded that bit. The von Zstorch and Zwiers book covers it, somewhat. William M. Connolley 22:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to autoregressive moving average models JQ 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

The Templeton Foundation

The Templeton Foundation used to provide grants for ID conferences and courses. According to The New York Times, Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, later asked ID proponents to submit proposals for actual research. "They never came in," said Harper, and that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said. The Templeton Foundation has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding, Harper states. "They're political - that for us is problematic," and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth."

I'd think that while individual members/beneficiaries of the Foundation's largess may embrace ID, the the Foundation itself is trying to distance itself from the ID movement, but keeping in mind that the Discovery Institute, the hub of the ID movement, actively tries to cultivate ambiguity around its own motives, actions and members with the aim of portraying ID as more substantial and more widely accepted than it actually is, as the Dover Trial ruling shows (it's worth reading). FeloniousMonk 21:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats interesting and useful William M. Connolley 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo of pulpit in Stephansdom in Vienna

I want to express my appreciation for the photo you uploaded; its shadow and contrast really bring out the relief and allow the user to see it well. I wish all the photos uploaded were as carefully composed. --StanZegel (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thats very kind to stop by so politely. I did take care over the photo - I have very fond memories of that pulpit from a cycle trip in 1986 William M. Connolley 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have you here

With all the disinformation around, it's nice to know that there are a few scientists here on WP who aren't willing to parrot whatever their corporate masters send in a memo. Be well and to the extent that it even matters, know that you have the respect of a lot of us! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. It *is* nice to know that occaisionally :-) William M. Connolley 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me second Ryan's statement - I find it very reassuring to have you around on the climatology articles. Raul654 19:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you don't feel like taking it back after I hack Inhofe... William M. Connolley 20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. I've just been skimming the conversations you've been in with various people and am amazed at your patience and dedication. It's a shame you have to go through the same disputes time and again with users who don't have either the scientific training or rational mindset required to reason about these complex issues. Hopefully Misplaced Pages will evolve to a point where such distractional arguments require less of your time. 129.215.11.58 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To Bdj

Can you give an outsider who's been pretty much frustrated to the point of leaving the page a quick-and-dirty as to why the page on Global warming dedicates less than a dozen words to the highly publicised controversies surrounding the science? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I can. Firstly, this page is primarily about the *science* over GW - not the politics or press. Hence, it tries to give a balance of the science, not the press coverage. If you're basing your expectations on the latter, you'll be disappointed.

Secondly, what do we have? there are a few scientists who disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming and A hotly contested political and public debate also has yet to be resolved, regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be cost-effectively done to reduce or reverse future warming, or to deal with the expected consequences and Contrasting with this view, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain all or most of the observed increase in global temperatures, including: the warming is within the range of natural variation; the warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period, namely the Little Ice Age; and the warming is primarily a result of variances in solar radiation. and There is a controversy over whether present trends are anthropogenic. For a discussion of the controversy, see global warming controversy. . And a whole section on solar variation. So I guess your "less than a dozen" is meant rhetorically.

Thirdly, what controversies are you expecting? Solar is in there; HSC isn't (and maybe should be touched on, though its not all that relevant).

Fourthly... its just about impossible to talk about this on t:GW while everyone is wasting time rehashing old arguments about "consensus" and sourcing William M. Connolley 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That makes sense about the science, although it would be nice to see a better cross-section of the interpretations. Regarding your "fourth," it's why I just cut to you. Thanks for the straight answer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:42, 27 March 2007 (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

Moved incident list from user talk to user page

Just to let you know, the incident list for your rules violation was moved from User talk:TMLutas/WMC to User:TMLutas/WMC. Your inclusion of Raymond Arritt's commentary was struck because it was irrelevant to the subject of the page. I'm trying to stay focused here.

You say that his opinion matches yours in your edit comment so I'll give you the same reply I gave him. What, particularly, in WP:GAME am I guilty of violating? No hand waving please, a substantive and correct reference to a real guideline or policy that I'm violating always results in my changing behavior. To do otherwise would be rude and impractical as it would probably lead to bans.

I gave you chapter, verse, and a helpful pull quote of how you're not defining reliable sources correctly and thus are yourself gaming the system with regards to your efforts on Climate of Mars. You, on the other hand, are rather more vague with your accusation, at least on this issue. Again, change the rules and you change my behavior. Maybe only peer reviewed stuff should get into science articles. Go make a consensus for it and I'll play by those rules. Somehow I think that guideline change may be difficult to pull off. TMLutas 02:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As GAME sez, Reliability is determined neutrally, using WP:RS and evidence of the community's view. You seem to think that you can declare your source reliable, without any one else having a comment. I disagree. Conf proceedings are not in themselves reliable, because nearly anyone can say nearly anything. And as I've said elsewhere, anything that *was* said at a conf in 2003 and didn't make it to the journals was deemed unworkable. Its obvious by now that you won't trust me on this; I recommend you find some science-type person that you *do* trust to consult. Your removal of RA's comment leaves the misleading impression that we were dumbfounded by your words and unable to reply William M. Connolley 08:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course that depdends on the field. In Computer science, conference proceedings for recognized conferences are thoroughly reviewed, and very often the final venue of publication even for rather significant results. But you have to know that the Conference on Automated Deduction is reliable, while the "World Multi-Conference on Systemics" is a "pay to play" event where you get to spend a week or two in Disneyworld and can claim the cost as expenses. --Stephan Schulz 13:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Pay to play?" The next thing I know you'll be telling me that Social Text is not a reliable source, or that the World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics is unreliable! Ben Hocking 13:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

*whoops* I just re-read what you wrote and realized that you were talking about that last one. Ben Hocking 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have an email in my box from the Lancet that represents that they can cut down the normal 3-6 month peer review process to only 4 short weeks! (they seem rather breathless in their sales gimmickry) Is this the sort of thing you all are talking about? TMLutas 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're going to assert admin perogatives, your assertion that "just a web page" won't do is no more binding than my own standard based on the criteria that everybody else seems to be using. "Just a web page" is a heck of a lot of wikipedia's sources and justifiably so. For a particular source to be knocked out you have to make a particular argument that it's not good, that nobody else has gone and made a peer reviewed paper backing the web page up does not mean that the web site is not a reliable source. The criteria for knocking it out should be the same criteria everybody else uses. TMLutas 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To make things a bit more clear, I don't think you're following WP:V properly. I certainly would agree that a peer reviewed paper would normally trump something online that is not peer reviewed but even there we should be looking at things on a case by case basis. Challenges such as the MM one to MBH98 are a more delicate matter as part of what is under challenge in a case like that is the reliability of the peer review process for that journal. Scientific error and even out and out misconduct can get past the peer review process. I believe a recent case happened in S. Korea in the context of cloning. TMLutas 19:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight - this describes conference proceedings (with quibbles as per Stephan). What is useful as a source depends on the topic - science is obviously different to politics - and centrality William M. Connolley 20:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the original ref was from space.com which you dismissed as it wasn't peer reviewed. We have discussed that elsewhere. I just stopped by to let you know that while I haven't changed my opinion on WP:V et al, I think I've been getting too emotionally involved. I'll content myself with my usual edits and we can squabble, if we need to, on actual material instead of proposals in talk that go nowhere. But you'll be the one to start the next round if there is one. TMLutas 20:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

apology

Promised I'd put this up on WMC's page so here it is. While we're in conflict in several areas, I really should keep the distinction between his sins as an editor and his sins as an admin.

I'll try to keep the distinction better between the two but no guarantees I'll get it entirely right all the time. There's no reason for us to knock heads over something as trivial as my confusing editor/administrator actions. I regret that I did that and I'll put a copy of this on your page as well. That doesn't change the underlying complaint, mind you, but I should have stated it accurately.

TMLutas 19:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

James Salsman and WP:BAN

James Salsman is currently petitioning editors to act on his behalf . He has been caught evading his block numnerous times with Sockpuupets . I know that you are familiar with this user, and I wanted to bring it to your attention. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that section William M. Connolley 08:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fashionable Nonsense

Can you please help me with Phil Sandifer. I feel he is needlessy altering this article. I can only assume he has a barrow to push.

Wow

You really are fair per this block. I thought you were unfair on a couple of issues, but apparently your tolerance and "punishment" are equal. Can I apologize if I got on your ass about a few items in the past? Well, I do apologize. I don't want to be on your bad side.  :) OrangeMarlin 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we're in accord now William M. Connolley 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Profg

You should probably know that he followed me around too. Mainly to The Slowskys after I'd reverted him at one of "his" articles while on POV patrol and has been doing his best to annoy me there with bogus notability objections, misused notability tags, and chronic reverting. He's a casebook Wikistalker. Odd nature 00:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)