This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) at 21:56, 11 May 2009 (→Help with an IP edit warrior: oh, wait). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with decency and humility, is to honour him; as signs of fear to offend. To speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly, impudently is to dishonour. Leviathan, X. This is a Happy Talk Page. No bickering. Proverb for the year: if you have nothing new to say, don't say it. 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. 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 actions: Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions

The Holding Pen

The <div> tag and Cascading Style Sheets_tag_and_Cascading_Style_Sheets-The_Holding_Pen-2009-02-03T06:39:00.000Z">

The <div> tag is part of the HTML standard, and in essence lets you group things logically in a HTML page. Since different user agents have different needs and treat the data differently (e.g. a screen reader for the visually impaired, a bot or a normal browser like Firefox) the rendering of elements and the logical structure has been separated into two different languages: HTML and CSS.

HTML is supposed to structure the document logically while CSS is used to change the visual appearance of a page. A website usually only has one or a few CSS documents (style sheets). Many HTML documents can then share the same style sheet, providing consistent formatting across the site.

The div element has two attributes, class and style, that are linked to the style sheet. The class attribute determines what "class" the element belong to. It is then possible to define a default style for elements of this class in the style sheet .

The style element is what's most interesting here though, it lets you override the default style of an element. So the part within the style="" is actually CSS.

W3C (website) is in charge of the CSS standard and it can be found on their website. Unfortunately, the dominating browser sets the de facto standard so things might not work as expected or even be implemented yet.

The W3C specifications aren't particularly good for learning but they are good as a reference. What you are looking for is probably: .

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

I took the liberty to modify your div tags on this page as an example, feel free to modify and revert as you like. I hope this is somewhat helpful at least. :)
—Apis (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)_tag_and_Cascading_Style_Sheets"> _tag_and_Cascading_Style_Sheets">

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

Reviving Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics

Crownest has expressed interest in reviving this. Since you were a member of the FD project (now converted into a taskforce), I'm wondering if you'd be a part of the Taskforce. The taskforce is undergoing a significant overhaul at the moment, and by the end of it, it should be fairly easy to get around and there should be a nifty compendium of useful tools for people interested in FD. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I can help in small ways, though no longer being professionally involved. I wonder if there is an embedded prog taskforce? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Current

User:Sam Degelia

Sam Degelia (talk · contribs) is still edit warring on Charles Harrelson. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Done William M. Connolley (talk) 06:50, 2 May 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)

User:Izzedine 3RR block.

William,

I'd appreciate your input at User talk:Izzedine#3RR Re: Syrian Desert regarding your 3RR block of that editor and his subsequent unblock request(s)—specifically, in the request that is currently "on hold."

Many thanks,

AGK 20:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Replied there William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Anthony on Stilts and User talk:Ht686rg90

I'm reviewing some blocks and I came across these two from you. Is it possible to solve this through page protection rather than blocking? I think we just need to force these two to discuss with each other and the block is putting that on hold. Mangojuice 23:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My personal preference is to block rather than page protect, as it gives others a chance to fix up the article (and I don't think either of these were highly-productive editors who would have been doing good stuff elsewhere). H's block has now expired; if you want to take AoS under your wing, I'm happy with that William M. Connolley (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:LUCPOL

Hi! First of all, I am usually the IP 141.83.42.10. I just created a log because of a user here. I already wrote to you because of him. Now I looked to other wiki's. E.g on the polish wiki he was blocked several times and the last block is for 2 years. Even here he is blocked with the reason well known multiwiki troll and 1 rok is as far as I know 1 year. And that is, how he show on his user site, his native language wiki. Now he spam again on my user page and on my discussion. And he don't get, that Katowice and Silesia is in European Union, so they are already listed here. The only way he operates, is to accuse others as sockpuppet and vandalism. I found also one thing where he just removed an answer from an IP without any reaction on it (perhaps because his English is worse than mine) . Or he remove edits without any reason. These are just a few examples in last time, don't want to look in older edits. Another thing is his neutrality, e.g. he remove in a disambiguation an important information just because it is the word Poland . For me all this looks like a German right-wing extremist, but I see he isn't a German (edits in German wiki were in a very bad German). Also by Lukas Podolski, were it is an important information that he is from Poland (for example his reaction when he scored goals against Poland and other reactions, too), he removed the information Poland and Polish-born . Two months before he wanted a information there, but a different one . And here he was adamant that a historical(!) region is as information in the topic sentence. Decide yourself what to do. Greeting --Dontwantanick (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. OK, so you have an account now, that is good. I'm having some trouble making sense of your complaints though. Clearly you don't like LUCPOL's editing. But you say Or he remove edits without any reason but that edit actually inserts text. Or by "remove edits" do you mean "reverts"? I'm afraid reverting is fairly common. Or the sock puppet stuff, e.g. - errm well that appears to be uncontested, and some time ago. I can try to help you, but: evidence from external wikis is weak; you need *current* problems; and it needs to be fairly focussed. You may also wish to look at WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my bad English. Yes, I meant "reverts". I want to change this again, but than it then it would be my 3rd change. As far as I know this is forbidden here, isn't it? And now Lucpol changed it already thrice: first one, second ond and third one...--Dontwantanick (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And please do smth with this and this. If I will do, he will never stop this. I don't want to have on my ip such things. Because this is my fix IP from my university and dormitory. Greetings--Dontwantanick (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you should be discussing it on the talk page of that userbox, no? LUCPOL's use of "vandal" as an edit summary is impolite, but just about defensible when an anon removes content with no discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've intervened at User:141.83.42.10 William M. Connolley (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re. Yes, but block in pl.wiki and szl.wiki (canceled by another administrator) I have by User: Lajsikonik - my enemy and... admin (canceled his administrator privileges, is no longer the administrator). We are however en.Misplaced Pages, so stay on topic. IP 141.83.42.10, User:Plk, User:Szkopski, new User:Dontwantanick and maybe User:Tyskar is one user. Template (and category "Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets" - pending verification) serves to such things. I will indicate sockpuppet all users, who use sockpuppet. This is vandalism - erased sources, therefore I reverted edition by him. German name and Poland city ? Introduces confusion, therefore my edition? The rest have already explained. LUCPOL (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi William. Do you want a translation of this ? It's actually pretty nasty and incivil and proclaims willingness to violate all kinds Wiki policies in pursuit of a specific goal (POV, edit warring, civility, "own"). It says things like "I can edit war for months" (using that exact phrase) and "don't you dare touch Silesian articles with your dirty Polish hands" (lapami = deragatory term for hands, roughly "dirty hands", like Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes). I know it's directed at someone who at the time was an anon and all the incivility (calling the other person "mental") is in Polish, but it's pretty offensive.radek (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For the moment I think I'm better off knowing. Should this escalate, we may well need a translation William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My block

Hello. Would you please reconsider your block? Alternatively, please state how to resolve similar issues in the future. I only made 3 edits to the article during the past 24 hours so cannot be 4R. No edits to the article for months before this so no pattern of borderline 3RR. The other user refused to give sources and resolve by discussing before further reverting as I asked him to do repeatedly on his talk page. Please see User_talk:Anthony_on_Stilts#Theodicy. Reporting this was the only way to resolve such an abuse of reverting while refusing to discuss. In order to report I had to revert 3 times. What else could I have done? What is an editor supposed to do if someone refuses to give sources or discuss and simply reverts to the version he likes? Make two reverts and report this to someone? Where? Or simply let such an editor dictate content? Ht686rg90 (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't reconsider your block, it has expired.

3RR: yes, I know, I said so.

In future: use the article talk page. It isn't a private conversation between you and AoS. If I'm trying to judge an edit war, I look on the article talk for discussion. Of course. And all too frequently fail to find it.

In order to report I had to revert 3 times - this is bad thinking. Discuss, try to draw in other editors: see WP:DR and WP:3O William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You can still formally lift the block. I did try discuss. You are saying that if I had done this on the article talk page instead off doing so on his user page I would not have been blocked? Ht686rg90 (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I could leave a message on your talk page saying "the block was a mistake", I suppose. But since it wasn't, I won't. Yes, had you been discussing this on the article talk page I would have been less likely to block you. WP:3RR now says this explicitly William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I now see that 3RR says so. Point taken.Ht686rg90 (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Vleague016

Has reverted anew w/o discussion. –Howard the Duck 11:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Indef'd William M. Connolley (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Another sock: User:Wiki0508.

AN 3

Hi thanks I have added a comment here Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jim_Sweeney --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, noted William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy smokes

Are you one of us? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It did last! Still, spotted evenutally. Who is "us" in this context? The Association of Apparently Respectable Editors for Bizarre, Subtle and Amusing Vandalism (AAREBSAV)? Wear the flag with pride, once you've passed your membership test William M. Connolley (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Who am us? Committed Beefheart fans. (My M.S. thesis acknowledges the assistance of Donald Van Vliet -- no one ever noticed.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I only had Mirror Man and a bootleg TMR William M. Connolley (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Thanks for semi-protecting the Dorje Shugden page. Please consider doing the same to the related Dorje Shugden controversy article, where that user is also active today. Emptymountains (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi William, can I pick your brains on something. I noticed that you often assess breaches of the 3RR policy, and I was wondering if you could tell me what happens if a Wiki Administrator is engaging in edit warring themselves? I assumed that administrators are bound by the same code of conduct as everybody, but can they actually be blocked like everybody else and can their administrator priveliges be taken away from them for such behaviour? Thanks. 80.41.63.249 (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be best for you to point me towards the article you are concerned about William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

3rr hurrah

Here are my three reverts revert 1, revert 2, revert 3 which are prompted by a fundamentally unreasonable editor. I want to test this principle that someone with a reasonable expert grasp of the subject will be blocked or banned for 3RR, in preference to someone who simply cannot grasp the basic principles of reasonable discourse. Peter Damian (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I recommend WP:1RR and WP:DR. If you want to be blocked, just let me know William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Liu Tao

As the prior blocking admin, would you mind offering him some advice as to why this isn't a smart long-term strategy? What I get for trying to help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

He is probably doomed, but we can but try William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Ryan

The current version, as of this writing, looks ok. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Dilbert

Today's Dilbert (Topper on Misplaced Pages) is particularly good... --BozMo talk 09:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Tempting... William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Busted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Breach of afd process

As atmoz has pointed out to you before, if you're involved in an afd issue, you're ineligible to delete a page. Please reinstate the page. As a matter of routine, you should userify the content. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm opening up an RfC on this matter of policy (not the article) Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Woot William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Woot or W00t? -Atmoz (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

W00t, I think, except I'd spell (and think of it as) woot. I was going to say faciet diem but realised my conjugating isn't up to it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Another 3

Another 3 reverts: , , . No I certainly don't want you to block me. But you have a choice. If you don't block, then we have established an important principle. I don't have to 'discuss' with lunatics, I can just continue to revert and build an encyclopedia. You clearly don't agree with that. Or you can block. Simple. What is it going to be. This is childish at one level. But an important principle is at stake. Peter Damian (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You broke 3RR so I blocked you William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:DSCN1621-topper-crop-crude-touchup 400x800.jpg

File:DSCN1621-topper-crop-crude-touchup 400x800.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:William M. Connolley sailing a Topper.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

File:DSCN1476-canoe-polo-practice-cam crop.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Canoe polo practice.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

File:DSCN1508-ely-cathedral crop.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Ely Cathedral snapshot.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

File:DSCN1740-difference-engine.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Babbage difference engine.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

File:DSCN1380-adnams-brewery 800x600.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Adnams Brewery.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Ryan

William, why you have chosen not to delete the many false "allegations" and false "confessions" on the Ronald Ryan article? Any person can make false allegations against deceased people who cannot verify these allegations and confessions. The article is currently "hearsay" based on one book and ignores all other news articles, documentaries and films on the Ryan case. In addition, there are many "referenced facts" concerning the possible innocence of Ryan, which you have chosen to delete. Please read all the references and review the article again, carefully. You will see that there is no evidence or proof, anywhere, of the alleged confessions and allegations made on Ronald Ryan. BeyondReasonableDoubt (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There was heavy edit warring with no attempt at discussion. I picked a version that might be sane and protected that to force you to talk. Reverting without talking is Bad William M. Connolley (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI re Peter Damian block

I have raised the issue of a possible disproportionate response in blocking PD while not doing so with the other party, or otherwise sprotecting the article concerned, at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Crazy block by Connolley. I have also noted your recent sanction history in relation to Peter Damian. You may wish to respond there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done so. In short: you're wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort taken in explaining yourself, it would have been less contentious if you had chosen "Disruptive editing" - no need to look at other parties or the situation generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely. I blocked PD for 3RR. This is very simple and easy to understand William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What on earth were you thinking when you blocked Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)? Seriously, are you sure you are acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia in enacting blocks like that on a article writer? LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he'll avoid interjecting foolish comments into the middle of dramatic situations in future William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad call IMO. Mishlai (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't seem to have got much support for it. Still, I have to justify the red flag somehow. This which you dug up is interesting; quite apart from LHvU, I hadn't realised low little PD knew about how wiki works William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it is nice to know that everyone is watching the soap :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Our disagreement

Hah, sorry then. If you don't like people using your name you shouldn't tell us what it is (I also use 'sir' indiscriminately, it's a colloquialism we obviously do not share). Now, I still object to your claim that I broke 3RR. First and foremost I was rewording text for one of the edits which you counted as a revert. I compromised with what the other editor was telling me. If that's really the same as a cold-blooded "you're wrong" revert then I guess you're right. But I don't believe you had the right to claim a violation. Kerrow (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR. For this rule, the definition of a revert is wider than usual. William (or Dr. Connolley, if you prefer ;-) is right. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

:-). You (K) 'll find I do know quite a bit about 3RR; check or my extensive block log William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Azazigoat

That user Azazigoat that you blocked claiming he is a sockpuppet of me. Based on what exactly have you done so? Have you even looked into his or her IP address? I would like an explanation of this action, otherwise I will have to file a report on the admins page about you violating Wiki rules and using your power on Misplaced Pages to make changes that are only based on speculation! I have NOTHING to do with that user, and you cannot say that simply because I share someone's point of view then I am necessary that same person! --Lanternix (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Identifying sock puppets is not just a matter of IP addresses, it is easy to play with IPs. Genuine new users whose first move is to enter an edit war and verbatim reintroduce material from an earlier version are pretty suspect. . When there is clearly a roving IP in a range doing the same reverts . And they then line on other articles it is too much even for Matilda's Aunt to swallow. Life is too short for this kind of nonsense. Stop it or your main account will get indefinitely blocked too. --BozMo talk 10:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Help with an IP edit warrior

You blocked 86.138.90.54 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit warring on the Pagan metal page. This IP is also edit warring on the 1960s in heavy metal music article. They have used multiple 86.138.X IP addresses to continue this edit war over an extended time and have exceeded 4RR on the page in their recent edits. 217.40.128.181 (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeeeessss: and the way that I can tell that he is a Evil Edit Warrior whereas you are the Good Guy is because you have thoroughly explained your edits on the talk page and avoided excess reverting... oh, wait... William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)