This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) at 17:12, 2 December 2007 (→RealClimate: well, keep it up). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Deleting irrelevant/facetious comments on the reference desk

I maybe under the wrong impression, but I don't think the reference desk is a forum. I keep trying to delete irrelevant remarks made, seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AReference_desk%2FScience&diff=166904389&oldid=166903562 but User:Someguy1221 keeps reverting them. If I'm wrong in this, I'll leave it alone, but I don't think that comment is appropriate or helpful. Malamockq 03:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why irrelevant replies should be put in or left in William M. Connolley 08:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

NASA Antarctica Temperature Trend Image

Greetings, Dr. Connolley. The erronious NASA image from Antarctic Cooling Controversy also appears here http://en.wikipedia.org/Climate_of_Antarctica#Climate_change . I've created a substitute from here http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Antarctic_Temperature_Trend_1951-2006.jpg#Summary 1. Does it look reasonably accurate to you? 2. Do you think we can replace the first NASA image with it in the Climate of Antarctica article without starting World War III? 3. Do you think there's any chance NASA would fix it or delete it if you emailed them from your BAS email address? Thanks for your opinion. Sagredo 08:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for that image. Its definitely better, and should replace the NASA image. I have some concerns - I've started a section on the ACC page. If it goes in there then I think we should put it into C of A. I've asked some folk but I don't think NASA are going to fix their eye candy in a hurry William M. Connolley 12:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the NASA image at Climate of Antarctica with a new image which, I think is better from a scientific point of view. An explanation for the change and a question for you are on the talk page . Thanks for your time, hope I'm not too much of a pest. Sagredo 04:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks a lot better, thanks William M. Connolley 09:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Formal Positions on AGW

As you may be aware, over at the AIT and RealClimate articles I have been seeking to characterize the positions of the contributors to RealClimate of which you are one, I believe. I asked this on the site yesterday and received a response from David here but I thought perhaps you could shed more light on the issue.

Is it fair to say that all of the primary contributors at RealClimate believe that the current warming trend is predominantly of anthropogenic origin? Would you be willing to poll them for me (if you don't already know) and/or clarify this point within the RealClimate wikipedia article? I understand that you are under no obligation to do so but I would appreciate any assistance you might provide in this respect.

Even if you cannot speak for the entire group, are you willing to make such a stand personally?

I am not sure why I am meeting resistance on the point of merely associating you all with the fundamental precept of the scientific consensus that you all seem to argue in favor of. I find that bizzare but I admit that thus far the resistance has not been from any of you.

--GoRight 19:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why I am meeting resistance... - for the obvious reason: you're implying bias on our part by the way you've edited. I don't speak for RC, of course. As for myself, I think this. For your specific question, do I believe that the current warming trend is predominantly of anthropogenic origin?, my answer is that I agree with the IPCC's review of the scientific literature, which in brief says "yes" William M. Connolley 19:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I understand your POV. Do you believe that I would somehow be implying any more bias on your part by referring to your position as described than is implied when other editors seek to refer to other equally credentialed scientists as "climate skeptics"? Would you care to take a personal stand on this practice as well?

As I pointed out over at AIT I am not seeking to claim bias on your part or that of your associates, only to treat you equally (on a personal level) with how your counterparts are being treated. In that sense I am actually seeking to remove bias. As I also mentioned over at AIT I would be just as happy if we could dispense with the labeling altogether and let the scientific analysis from either side stand on its own merits.

Either way thanks again for your response. I mean no personal disrespect. --GoRight 20:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be subscribing to the "false balance" fallacy William M. Connolley 09:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, I don't think so actually. The "false balance" fallacy would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. My argument is not addressing the relative numbers of people on either side of the debate, only the manner in which those people are being described. I do not seek to mischaracterize anything here. I only seek an even handed treatment in terms of the characterization of the integrity and motives of the adherents on either side of the debate. That is not the same thing.

For example, I am not trying to characterize the contributors at RC as being "pro-AGW". I am merely trying to provide an accurate characterization of belief systems of those contributors. Note the key word here is accurate. I thought my simply stating that the people in question believed in the fundamental precept of AGW was a neutral way of characterizing those beliefs. I guess that even that is contentious which is amusing to me because you all argue so fervently in favor of that position yet you don't actually want your name tagged with it.

I am not tied to that particular description and I am here talking with you to try and find a description that you find less objectionable. Would you find "climate scientists who agree with the IPCC assessments" any less objectionable? I mean you would argue that agreeing with the IPCC assessments is the correct position would you not? Or is your complaint simply that you don't want to have your position characterized or discussed at all?

--GoRight 14:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit makes your POV clear; thank you for clarifying things William M. Connolley 14:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Which part or parts of that edit are you referring to? We have been having a long standing debate about the use of RealClimate as a source. I am simply trying a new approach to see if we can find some acceptable common ground. I would prefer, if the legitimacy of RealClimate as a source rests with the credentials of its authors, that those authors actually sign their work so that we can at least know who's credentials we are discussing on a case by case basis. Do you believe that this is unfair somehow? Would you or any of your RC compatriots be able to publish scientific papers anonymously? I think not. Therefore if you want to have your political commentary carry the weight justified by your credentials, simply sign the articles being referenced so we know who wrote them. What is the purpose of having anonymous articles at RC anyway? --GoRight 17:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The last two, of course. You're very wordy, here and elsewhere William M. Connolley 18:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the wordiness but my experience has been that being too terse frequently leads to misunderstandings, something that I try to avoid. What, exactly, is your problem with the last two parts of that edit (I think I know but I don't want to simply assume so I am asking to avoid a misunderstanding)? Also, please address my question regarding the use of anonymous postings at RC (assuming that you know the details). —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoRight (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

COI

You should not be adding links to a blog to which you contribute. That is a clear COI, not to mention that blogs are inappropriate sources for BLP. I will not revert it again without seeking further input, but I think you should revert it yourself. ATren 15:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think thats covered by . But if you disagree, you can start it up again William M. Connolley 16:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

From that case: "So I advise Connolley to exercise care with regard to WP:COI where edits regard colleagues with whom there might be an appearance of impropriety." If this were the global warming page, I would have less a problem with it, but this is a BLP, the content is critical, the source is a blog, and you are a member of that blog. I believe it is inappropriate for you to be adding critical assessments from your own blog to a BLP. ATren 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't involve a colleague. Nor is this a BLP problem: crit of peoples work is without question permitted William M. Connolley 17:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I misunderstood the term "colleague" in this context.

But I still disagree with inclusion. Reliable criticism is permitted in BLP articles. This is not reliable. Both claims are unpublished, and in fact, there is not even an author attribution on the RealClimate link. While this might be borderline permissible in an article about the global warming debate, I do not believe it passes muster for a BLP article. You would not appreciate if similar blog-sourced criticism were added to your article, especially if it was the blog authors doing it. But I realize we disagree on this, so I will raise it at the BLP noticeboard and get some external feedback. ATren 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RC is used elsewhere as a reliable source. Reasonned crit of my work would be fine on my page William M. Connolley 20:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One small point, however, is that neither WP:RS nor WP:BLP cite "well it's used elsewhere on the site" as a valid definition of a reliable source. I am in a bit of a quandery as to how to address the point. On the one hand I agree that participation in wikipedia by experts such as yourself is valuable and good, in general, especially on the narrow points of the science involved. But you are notorious for being a POV pusher as evidenced by the talk pages (see TGGWS talk for example). Your having the unrestricted ability to reference RC opens the door to your being able to get things into wikipedia that you could not otherwise get in. All you have to do is write anything you want on RC and then reference and quote it here. There are clearly things on RC which are credible and should be considered valid references here and I don't have a wholesale objection to that. My only objection would be doing so as a back door for POV pushing. Unfortunately I don't see any effective way define guidelines which would allow you to leverage the legitimate content while preventing any abuse of the privilege. Any pursuit of official guidelines would have to be through the appropriate venues, obviously. In the end I guess that we have to simply assess things on a case by case basis, IMHO. Sorry for the interruption. --GoRight 21:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave up at you are notorious for being a POV pusher - if there was anything else you wanted to say, I suggest you refactor it and try to be polite William M. Connolley 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. All I meant is that there have been numerous examples and complaints on this point leveled against you by a variety of other editors (whether fairly or not). I will state here that I do not consider you to have any dishonest or nefarious intent in this regard and I am satisfied that you have all good intentions. Let us just say that based on the discussion pages and my personal interactions thus far (which are admittedly limited) that it is clear (to me) that you are passionate about your position, and at least in my personal opinion there are some times when that passion clouds your judgement as to the neutrality or objectivity of the edits that you introduce. I will also state that this would be true of any other editor who is passionate about a given topic, so I do not mean any personal disrepect by raising this point. We are simply here to discuss it.

I would hope that you can at least acknowledge the unique position that your background and your relationship to RC presents relative to other editors, and can also acknowledge how those other editors might see your ability to post whatever you wish on RC and then claim an automatic stamp of credibility as having potential for impropriety (whether such abuses have occurred or not).

As I said above I am in a quandary as to how best to proceed. Misplaced Pages is clearly better off when experts such as yourself participate and contribute directly. I also agree that your ability to post things at RC while still contributing fully here should not be compromised which is why I cannot think of any type of "rule or policy" that can effectively address the concerns of other editors.

What I seek to avoid is any recurring conflicts over the use of RC as a credible source which it clearly is in most, if not all in the opinion of some here, cases. This is the only reason that I speak in terms of "rules or policies", of which I personally have no authority to create or enforce. I would seek to discuss this point in a wider venue with the intent to come to some agreement in this respect. If the agreement is that nothing special is required then so be it. If the agreement is that your use of references to RC material must meet some sort of (simple) qualifying criteria that makes the decision on such use objective rather than subjective then this might avoid these types of disagreements moving forward.

I would argue that any such agreement would have to first and foremost not place you at any sort of disadvantage as a wikipedia contributor but would only seek to allay the concerns over your having (an at least perceived) advantage with respect to other editors here. Again the goal would simply be to reduce these types on conflicts which would probably make your life somewhat easier as well.

In the absence of any such agreement I suspect that the current warring will be perpetual. I also understand that you are under no obligation to accept such a proposal, but would you be amenable to discussing such an up front agreement? The advantage that I see from your perspective would simply be that when such points inevitably come up with other editors you can simply point them to the agreement and that should be the end of it. Perhaps I am naive in that respect, but I would certainly pledge to abide by the letter and the spirit of any such agreement.

At any rate it is just an idea, please let me know what you think. --GoRight 13:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, which I'm happy to accept. People generally see other people differently to themselves; you don't appear to see any problems with your edits, which look to me like you are removing criticism that you find inconvenient under the guise of sources. RC is judged a reliable source because it is. Your concerns about me being able to write what I like and then source it have theoretical but no practical basis. I would propose a case-by-case approach: is the material being referenced reasonable? In this case it certainly appears to be - no-one is saying its wrong William M. Connolley 16:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough about people seeing their own edits differently. I don't really claim to be a saint here. But my motives for 95% of my edits are generally to seek some form of even handedness in the treatment of people on both sides of the debate. Your mileage may vary, of course. This usually takes the form of (1) trying to remove what I consider to be unfairly critical, misleading, or ad hominem material in an effort to just keep things clean, or (2) adding comparable material on the other side of the issue to keep things in perspective if people really want a given topic included. I think that this is consistent with my edits on the AIT page. Anyway, if you prefer to continue case by case that is fine. --GoRight 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But do you not agree, that even if RC were reliable (which I think is an open question, particularly in a BLP) it would be inappropriate for you to be adding it? This is basically the definition of COI. ATren 16:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you're asking, the answer seems obvious William M. Connolley 16:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not obvious. Do you or do you not agree that adding a link to your own unpublished blog in a BLP is a conflict of interest? ATren 16:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-read your question. You are asking me, do I consider my own behaviour to be inappropriate. Now do you know what my answer is? William M. Connolley 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you intentionally ignore the conflict of interest guideline? ATren 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it meets the conflict of interest criteria, but if it did I'd want to keep the source that you've been trying to remove regardless. I'm not affiliated in any way with RealClimate but like most objective observers, I find RC to clearly be a reliable and quality source. Gmb92 16:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Atren - I think you're now down at the lawyering, trying to get me to trip over words. The position is clear, and if you have anything of substance to discuss I'm happy to William M. Connolley 17:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked a simple question, you provided enigmatic answers; when I asked for clarification, you again responded ambiguously and accused me of trying to baiting you. Given your reinsertion of RC to Gray's article (after I and 2 others removed it), it's clear what your position is with respect to COI. ATren 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If my position is clear, why are you asking lawyers questions? William M. Connolley 18:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-read my last comment. I asked "lawyer questions" because I really did not know the answer at the time that I asked them, because you were providing enigmatic answers. Your later responses and actions confirmed your position. If you don't want me to ask questions like a lawyer, maybe you should stop answering them like a defendant. :-) ATren 18:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

William, this is now a 3RR on your part. I think it is inadvisable for you to war on this issue, given your involvement with RealClimate. I'm taking it to BLP. ATren 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Its cleary not 3RR - its 3R. You've already said you're taking it to BLP, there is no need to repeat William M. Connolley 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-published

It was my mistake. Assumed that the sources were left in from your reversion of DHeyward. ATren's edit description was a bit misleading. I already self-reverted. Cool Hand Luke 21:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, that explains it. Thanks William M. Connolley 21:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusing edit summary. I swear it made perfect sense when I wrote it. :-) ATren 21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Gray

With regard to this and other comments on the talk page, I don't know if you intend to convey hostility, but that's the vibe I'm getting. I think everyone in that debate is pretty reasonable, and we're all working toward a more encyclopedic article. There's no need to fight - reasonable editors can come to a version that is acceptable to everyone. I think the article is already better, with the Sagan/Nightline trivia gone and the sourcing improved. So let's work together and get it right, OK? :-) ATren 22:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not intending to convey hostility. But I do disagree with your whitewashing crit of Grays "science" on spurious BLP grounds William M. Connolley 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize you are very close to this issue, and the removal of details must be frustrating to you, but this is far from a whitewashing. DHeyward's version is actually quite critical if you read it - just not detailed. And that's the distinction: the fact that Gray has clashed with GW scientists is notable, as is the fact that GW scientists have been critical of his work. But the details of that conflict - most of which are documented in unpublished sources - are not notable. That's DHeyward's view and I concur 100%. ATren 04:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The details are available from RS; for some reason I don't understand you don't want to include them. Is it perhaps because you don't find the underlying science interesting or comprehensible? William M. Connolley 10:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider unpublished sources to be reliable. None of Gray's scientific work on GW has been published, and neither has any of the detailed criticism. And for that reason I don't consider the details to be notable in an encyclopedia article about Gray. A simple paragraph that summarizes the conflict is all that's needed, IMO. ATren 16:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that none of Grays "science" has been published; if it had been, sourcing for the replies would have been similar. But his *views* have certainly been published; for example William M. Connolley 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his views have been published, and non-scientific responses from other scientists have also been published (i.e. Webster). That's precisely what DHeyward's proposed section documents. That's the point: keep the fact that he dissents, and that he's been criticised for it (by his own colleague!), but the specific details are not appropriate because none of it is published. ATren 00:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. You really don't get it, and I'm bored explaining it to you over and over. His views have been published. So have his bizarre "mechanisms". So have the replies. For reasons taht are unclear to me, you and DH want to whitewash all this out William M. Connolley 09:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The details are important because to say "he dissents" is almost information-free. It leaves the reader wondering, Why does he dissent? If he doesn't believe the consensus view, what does he think instead? The material as it stands is too long, but your proposed trimmage is way too short. Raymond Arritt 13:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gulf Stream

A recent back-and-forth in AIT got me wondering: does Gulf Stream deserve a more detailed discussion of its physical causes than just mentioning that it's wind driven? Raymond Arritt 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That would depend on how far into the causes you want to get. It would be nice to point out that its just one part of the gyre, and that basic ocean dynamics just makes that part thin William M. Connolley 09:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I'm wondering how I could delete my user account. If there's nothing left for me to do personally, could you add me to the list of missing Wikipedians? Revolutionaryluddite 18:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, though you can do that yourself. Your user page is deleted, as you know. If you want your account deleted, that needs a bureaucrat. Best wishes, William M. Connolley 11:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

okay, thanks. Revolutionaryluddite 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC) (So this is goodbye... )

Solar Constant

You seem to have been a driving force behind this section of Solar Radiation, or at least you are aware of the intents of the article. Would you please help to clarify the world Solar Constant of 1.740×10super17 Watts, specifically as /day, /hour, /year. This would help greatly in some math I am attempting. Thank you in advance 75.60.172.81 00:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not William, but power (measured in Watt) is energy (measured in Joule) per time (measured in seconds). Being (assumed) constant, there is no other / time unit. Or do I misunderstand your question? ---Stephan Schulz 04:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Hi there, William M. Connolley. I really don't think you should be reverting page locks of administrators especially on an article in which you are part of a content dispute. If you have noticed over the past few days (weeks), the sentence keeps getting fought over, albeit one revert at a time. Yes, DHeyward broke 1RR, but then so did Raul654. The problem, I think, is that 1RR is both ineffective and unenforceable, in the minds of administrators, if it isn't from ArbCom. Therefore, the 1RR should be lifted and you should unblock DHeyword, or you should take it upon yourself to block Raul654 for the same infraction. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re Raul, see the RFC. Re 1RR - I believe that it is enforceable. I've just enforced it. On the larger issue of the sentence itself... do you think a 1 week protect will solve it through talking? I don't. We've talked about this a lot and there is no progress William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see the RFC. Raul654 broke a community-sanctioned 1RR, but that was not enforced by the administrators because it did not come from ArbCom. So do you really think a week-long protect on a user who made one revert as part of a content dispute will resolve anything? I don't. Others don't. Talking is a much for sensible approach than arbitrary blocks and despotic protections. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Do indeed see my response of the RFC. In essense, I think Obediums edit was vandalism (if you choose to dispute that, please do it either on the RFC or here but not both). Thus anyone was entitled to revert it without that revert "counting".

Now, onto resolving anything: first, I notice you haven't chosen to answer my question re the protect. You don't have to I suppose - but if you have an opinion I'd be interested to hear it. Second, Obedium is not a serious contributor. The edit war will hopefully be somewhat dampened by his absence, so in that sense yes it will help resolve things, but only a bit. In terms of the edit war, O's block is largely neutral. Perhaps it will teach him not to make silly jokes at inappropriate times, in which case he too will have gained William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your RfC comment there. Now, I value process. It's important we follow process in these cases, instead of resorting to unfair and arbitrary blocks and despotic protections, because those don't help. I said above, talking is a much more sensible approach. You should unblock DHeyword, Obedium should be unblocked, and we should figure out a way to make this work. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I value appropriate language. "arbitrary", "despotic" etc just sound like an attempt to ramp up a dispute. They don't help. DH - will discuss there. O - will discuss there. Prot - not sure what you mean William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Using admin tools in a content dispute...

Isn't this a no-no? If you felt that DHeyward was in 1RR, you should have brought it to one the noticeboards for an uninvolved admin to evaluate. ATren (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on circumstances. I thought DH's 1RR was clear enough, sadly I was wrong about the clarity William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: CltFn

Now that I'm aware of them, I think it's self-evident that he's violated his unblock conditions. This being said I'm not sure exactly what kind of comment you were asking for. Everything relevant is already in my warning post, it's up to administrators to decide how to enforce the conditions. <eleland/talkedits> 21:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. When I unblocked CltFn I implicitly assumed responsibility for monitoring his parole. I've blocked him for 24h for now, what happens next will depend on his response William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Watch 3RR at UHI. I suspect there already are folks salivating at the prospect that you could be blocked over that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm watching. Anyway it would do me no harm to get blocked for a while :-). Feel free to take a position yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of that. While anyone who deliberately fakes data should be keelhauled, there are serious BLP concerns as the charges are not yet confirmed. Should we keep it in some form, or delete? Thoughts? Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your edit. As I've said on talk, the claim that the data doesn't exist is simply wrong - why are you leaving it? Have you read the E&E paper? The claims are problems only in China, so the assertion that "much" of the data is non-existent is clearly nonsense. But anyway, the problems are over metadata, not data, as I've pointed out on talk William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And this is E&E - you've not regarded them as an RS elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Out it goes. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. That will then mean dealing with 3RR on the part of our anon friend William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Second Pillar Of Misplaced Pages

Hi,

As a new user i note that on the Prof Oreskes page, and regarding climate change, there is anything but a "neutral view point"- the second pillar! My recent addition to this biog aimed to balance out the over zealous endorsement of the subject matter. ThomDoughty (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, NPOV is a good idea. However, the question is whether your contribution was. The Schulte paper has been heavily criticised in the blogosphere (including by me, I'd guess), and has been rejected (as I understand it) by E&E - do you think otherwise? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have little time for the "blogosphere" as on the whole, though not entirely, much of what is written is extremely polarised with little rational thought. There is a 'tribe' mentality developing within this debate and it is far from helpful. I happen to think that Shculte's work deserves the attention of those who purport to have an interest in this area. His response to Prof Oreske's criticisms is complete and thorough. Various suggestions in the blogosphere have simply aimed at tainting a reputable academic (see refs to plagiarism, links to oil business). In stark contrast to these claims, Mr Schulte is a hard-working and talented NHS consultant who has shown an intelligent, well thought through interest in the field of climate change. Should he not be welcomed ThomDoughty (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to say about Schultes work as a doctor. As a climatologist, its clear he is guilty of plagiarism: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/schulte_replies_to_oreskes.php proves this quite convincingly. As I said, Schultes work has been rejected by E&E (and, of course, by Science). Were you aware of this? If so, how do you justify William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What a waste of the project's time

I'm sorry but an editor that writes this crap needs to have his brain smacked. I tried to help out here, but I don't want a 3RR violation. I hope he's blocked forever. OrangeMarlin 22:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Tis a bit; I've reported it at 3RR. Did you see ? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I dropped a warning on his page, and was about to do it, when I noticed you did. Someone (probably not you, since you're in the dispute) needs to block him permanently. I have no patience for POV-warriors. OrangeMarlin 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

RealClimate

I must protest your characterization of my edits on the RealClimate article as "trollish". This is not in line with WP:AGF nor WP:CIV. I have pointed these types of things out to you repeatedly on the AIT page where you have repeatedly reverted my edits on the talk page no less as "trash".

I note that on the issue of Steven Milloy's comment in AIT your cadre of followers repeatedly pointed to Roger Pielke, Jr. as a good source for political issues. Now they seem to be referring to him as a mere blogger and his commentary as random blog entries from a political scientist. This latter point being particularly ironic since we are discussing a political issue. The disdain just rolls off of those comments. I find this dichotomy of opinion between the two pages to be somewhat self-serving to say the least. As is the dichotomy of arguments presented on the issue of "controversial" between the AIT and TGGWS pages.

Let us just see what turns up from outside opinions on these issues, shall we?

--GoRight (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confused. I said your comments were "a waste of time amounting to trolling" on t:AIT . On RC, I called your edits absurd, as they were. I don't recall calling any of your edits "trollish". You have a chance to make a +ve contribution to wiki; at the moment you're failing, and the response to you is becoming laughter, as a highly respected contributor like Stephan has pointed out. Your constant reference to AGF is not a substitute for sensible behaviour (help me here folks... where was that essay about calling on AGF too much?) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AAGF. Cheers! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to stick my nose in (but I will), I think it's good for us to try to assume good faith as much as possible. I believe GoRight is misinformed, but I do believe he is acting in good faith. However, assuming good faith does not mean that (a) information is assumed to be correct or helpful, (b) no POV is present (we all have them), or (c) that the assumption cannot be later proven false by the actions of the editor.

I find that a lot of editors who complain about AGF (and I'm not referring to you, William) use it to justify bad behavior on their part.

I think there have been a lot of hostile responses to GoRight, and although I understand the frustration, and am definitely not the perfect editor myself in regards to being completely civil, I do think that we should be as polite as possible when pointing out to him where he is mistaken. Ben Hocking 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

William's looking for WP:AAGF, which is quite applicable here. (Note especially "Carbonite's Law.") The social norms of Misplaced Pages are such that it usually helps your case to pretend you believe others are acting in good faith even when they aren't. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Having considered the comments above carefully, as well as those which have been removed, I wish to make my admittedly general concerns more clear. I believe that in the face of some of the characterizations, taunts, and jeers which have been leveled at me by a rather consistent group of editors, yourself included, that I have remained generally WP:CIV throughout our interactions, with perhaps the commentary on this specific section being a bit of an exception. In that respect I will accept in good faith your characterization of those comments as being "unhelpful" as being correct.

My concern is that the taunts and jeers contribute to a generally unWP:CIV environment overall. I understand that you (collectively) may find my positions to be not in line with your own but I don't think that terms such as "trash", "trollish", or "absurd" will help to improve our relations. That is my only complaint, if you even want to call it a complaint. It is more an observation and intended to be well intentioned constructive criticism at this point. I hope that you will accept it as such.

As a side note, you make reference above to "+ve". I am unfamiliar with this term, could you please explain its meaning and use? --GoRight 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify whether you accept you were in error above William M. Connolley 20:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To which part? I would ask the same of you, BTW. This is clearly an attempt on my part to improve our on-going relations. Are you willing to do likewise? --GoRight 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for good relations, excess complaints about CIV aren't conducive. But lets sort out the errors first: I mean the para starting "I think you're confused. I said your comments were "a waste of time amounting to trolling" on t:AIT" William M. Connolley 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

On the specifics of exactly when and where you referred to my edits and/or comments as "trash", "amounting to trolling", "absurd", and whether or not you consider "the response to is becoming laughter" is all adequately captured in the histories of the relevant pages. If I erred above with respect to the RC comments then I stand corrected. The details of when and where are not important. The characterizations, taunts, and jeers are important for the reasons described above and as discussed in WP:CIV. I am not some delicate flower that cannot take a taunt or a jeer, but if we are to live by the letter AND the spirit of WP:CIV they should be minimized. If I have unfairly labeled a specific instance as being WP:CIV in error, I apologize for such. I do not, however, apologize for simply following the stated rules and guidelines for how to respond in such cases as I understand them.

I believe that the letter and the spirit of WP:CIV says that taunts and jeers when applied on a regular basis is considered detrimental to the community. As such, my pointing them out when they occur in an otherwise civil manner should not be considered a problem and in fact should be considered proper conduct in the spirit of WP:CIV.

I wish to try and find a less pointed and contentious style of interaction (from both sides). In that light and consistent with the spirit of WP:CIV I agree to be more discerning in pointing out infractions if you will attempt to be more judicious in your references to my comments and/or edits. --GoRight 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If I erred above with respect to the RC comments then I stand corrected... sorry guv, not good enough. Delete the initial "If" and I'll be happy. You did err - or rather, I assert that you did, and I'd like you to be honest enough to admit it, or to defend yourself. Please note that putting quotes around something, like "trollish", means you believe that exact thing was said. Now, you've managed 5 pointless repetitions of CIV, when what is required is honesty and clarity William M. Connolley 22:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I not trying to be evasive here. I believe that my post basically accepted that if I had erred I stood corrected (i.e. I agreed). If it is important to you for some reason that I explicitly agree with "I said your comments were "a waste of time amounting to trolling" on t:AIT . On RC, I called your edits absurd, as they were. I don't recall calling any of your edits "trollish"." Fine, I so agree. But to focus on these details is to miss the larger point.

Points of clarification.

1. I also do not mean anything specific by my use of WP:CIV above other than to be extremely precise in my meaning. Each such instance above could be switched with the more informal and less precise word "civil". While my usage above may make the text appear more aggressive that was not the intent. The intent above was to convey that I was meaning precisely the definition of "civil" as spelled out in WP:CIV, nothing more. I apologize if this editing style seems offensive and I will attempt to write in a less "lawyer like" fashion (see discussion of double quotes below) moving forward on this particular issue.
2. My use of double quotes above is not meant to convey exact wording but is rather used in a manner comparable to when the High Court Ruling on AIT uses the term "errors". Although the confusion is understandable in this context. For our purposes here, "trollish" means simply that you referred to my comments as being trollish in nature. I don't think I am being deceptive when I interpret "amounting to trolling" (literally in this case) to mean trollish in nature (i.e. "trollish"). The same would apply to my other quoted texts above and I apologize for any misunderstanding on this point.

It is not my intent to mischaracterize your statements and, as I said, the exact wording and context are adequately recorded in the relevant edits of the relevant pages if for some reason it should become necessary to be more precise. My point is not concerned with the exact wording being used, but rather the nature and the implications thereof. --GoRight 23:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So many words, and yet you're still not there. You're now down to If it is important to you for some reason that I explicitly agree... which isn't acceptable, because once again you've prefixed it with If. You use too many words: lets try to make it simple: you complained I must protest your characterization of my edits on the RealClimate article as "trollish" - this is an error on your part: yes or no? William M. Connolley 23:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What part of "Fine, I so agree" isn't meeting with your satisfaction? This statement is not conditional in the above text.

I must protest your characterization of my edits on the RealClimate article as "trollish" - this is an error on your part: yes or no? Yes, that was an error on my part. It should have read: I must protest your characterization of my comments on the AIT talk page as "trollish", or "amounting to trolling" to be more precise.

Is there a point to this trip 'round the Mulberry bush? --GoRight 23:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am rather unsure why you are bothering. Your protest is rejected. +ve == positive William M. Connolley 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The spirit of WP:CIV and WP:DISPUTE suggest that I should make an attempt to maintain better relations in circumstances such as this. I believe that I have now made a substantial effort to do so but it appears that the desire to do so is not reciprocated. Please correct me if I am incorrect on this point. --GoRight 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel absolutely sure that there is not parity of good faith between us William M. Connolley 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree given your behavior, as noted below, wherein you accuse me of having "pretended agreement" when the record clearly bears out my statement. But this is a digression from the question I asked. Are you willing to work together to try and get to the point where there is a parity of good faith between us? --GoRight 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to work hard to get to the point where your faith is as good as mine. But keep trying. Already there is progress - you haven't mentioned CIV/AGF for a while. But the mulberry stuff was a step backwards. A hint: avoid digressions; your prose is too prolix already William M. Connolley 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I must now formally protest your characterization of my clearly documented claim of a limited agreement (based on my interactions on the talk page with the only editor, MastCell, actually discussing the issue in any depth) as being a "pretended agreement" (your exact wording in this case). This seems to be decidedly outside the realm of WP:AGF. I make note of the fact that your revert to discussion ratio seems rather high on this matter. Could you please either engage in the substantive discussion or refrain from simply engaging in edit warring behavior? --GoRight 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Noted; rejected William M. Connolley 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

global warming

Are you trying to say that the authors did not characterize the sort of bias their paper was meant to address? How is "uncertainty" in any way more faithful to the paper than "overestimated".Zebulin 22:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm lying through my teeth, of course. Now have another go at asking the question in a polite way and you'll get a sensible answer William M. Connolley 23:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you still appalled by the rudeness of the modified text?Zebulin 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly appalled by the rudeness of modifying talk so that my comments no longer make sense, but I can let that go. OK, the substance: I think that the substance of the paper is uncertainty, and suggestions for improvement. Certainly they use the word overestimate, but that is from the main point. Its not even really clear whose estimates are supposed to be over. From the embedding within the GW, one might suspect the IPCCs, but these aren't mentionned. Hence, the suggestion that plucking out the word "overestimate" is quote mining William M. Connolley 23:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

with regards to modifying the text I didn't intend to make your comment not make sense I simply assumed that you weren't responding because you didn't want a "rude" comment on your talk page and I assumed you were very (if you'll forgive the term) "anal" about unnecessary duplication in wikipedia given your earlier modification my edits to talk pages as being unnecessarily lengthy. I apologize for the misunderstanding.Zebulin 23:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to make a small semantics detour to make sure we are on the same page here. My (possibly outdated) understanding of quote mining is that it consists of removing a statement from a context such that information that would modify the meaning of the removed content is lost thereby altering it's original intended meaning. Do you agree on that understanding? I think the quote mining issue will be central to any agreement on how to handle the extinction rate paper. <edit> or better yet, can we start from the content of the Quote mining article? If so then the accusations of quote mining that were appearing in the GW discussion (and which you appeared to recognize as legitimate) remain totally unsubstantiated. What is there in the article that could be used to alter the meaning of the idea that earlier projections have overestimated extinction rates? There is absolutely no quote mining occurring here. Rather the authors ideas appear to be getting compromised with weasel wording. They do not merely state that there was some uncertainty (possibly over estimating or possibly underestimating) which they offer suggestions to fix but rather that they had identified specific biases that overestimated extinction rates and offered suggestions to remove them. Rather than any sort of earlier quote mining occurring what we now appear to have (with the replacement of "overestimated" with "uncertainty") is an example of substantially altering the meaning of a sourced statement. Zebulin 23:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. Quote mining is taking something from a larger structure that misleads as to the meaning of the larger structure. At least it is when I use it. I haven't read the wiki page yet William M. Connolley 18:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That may be a different understanding of quote mining but even so, how do you see quote mining in that sense (as you mean it) in this case? I hope you are not saying that for instance if an article were published that noted tendencies for models of the development of the universe to produce underestimates of the age of the universe and suggested multiple ways to remove the biases responsible that it would be quote mining to say that the authors believed that the estimates of the age of the universe were underestimates? I continue to find the accusations of quote mining in this case, whatever the definition of quote mining used, to be baffling. I probably need more details as to where it's coming from.Zebulin 00:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, just before the sentence, Thomas et al.'s estimates are given (and only theirs are presented in the article). Botkin et al. and others (e.g. Araújo et al., Thuiller et al., Buckley and Roughgarden, Pearson et al., & Harte et al.) raise serious issues over uncertainty in Thomas et al.'s projections. Botkin et al. argue that research and other errors in projection indicate overestimation. ~ UBeR 19:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

... thanks for all the fish

So does that mean you'll be doing less around here as well? I certainly wouldn't blame you for wanting to spend more time on more practical (and less confrontational) affairs. Dragons flight 08:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. We'll have to see how it goes William M. Connolley 11:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)