Jump to content

User talk:William M. Connolley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 4.156.147.17 (talk) at 18:59, 13 January 2006 (→Janusz Karpinski, about [[aetherometry]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
I'm back...


Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4,

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page).

If your messages are rude, wandering or repetetive 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.

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

Image of the tidal forces

Hi, I think the direction of the arrows in Image:Tidal-forces-calculated.png should be reversed. Furthermore in many articles the moon is assumed to be on the right. Therefore a version with left and right reversed is also of interest. If you like to make new versions a better resolution like 800x800 could be interesting to make the small difference on both sides of the earth visible. --Wolfgangbeyer 12:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, but, I don't see how the arrows can be reversed. The field is generated at the bottom, hence is stronger at the bottom of the picture than in the middle, hence the arrows at the bottom must point down, towards the field generator. No? But if we can sort that out, I have no objection to making a higher-rez version. William M. Connolley 19:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry for my mistake assuming the generator of the field to the left of the center instead at the bottom. --Wolfgangbeyer 22:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aha :-) OK, in that case I'll see about redrawing them at a better rez "soon" - William M. Connolley 22:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Request

I will have a look at it later on - not time right now, but I will this evening. Guettarda 19:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. William M. Connolley 09:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Twins paradox

Hi William, You reverted my additions to the twins paradox. I found them very helpfull to keep people from falling in a pit. Why didn't You. The article contains contradictionary presumptions! If we are not able to agree in this simple case, how to agree on climate change? ;-) ErNa 17:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

File:Resilient-silver.png
For remaining resolute in the face of extreme provocation, I Guettarda award you the Barnstar of Resiliency
I'm touched - thank you. William M. Connolley 16:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Sir, as a fellow science communication enthusiast I feel you deserve this fine atom star! Joe D (t)

Please use talk pages on climate articles

I just wanted to thank you for your work on various climate articles here at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, though, a user raised the issue on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard that you have been violating the of your parole with regard to climate articles. You don't appear to have been doing too many reverts per 24 hour period; instead, the problem is that you need to state on the article's talk page why you reverted the article and give a reference or citation. I hope you will follow the terms of the parole by posting on the talk pages. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for what it's worth, no one pointed out that another discussion on this (at [1]) was already going on. Wish I'd known that before. Anyway, best,--Alabamaboy 16:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thanks and for your messages. I think you'll find that I discuss on the talk pages where this is useful, and use edit summaries where that suffices. Anything more would be unreasonably burdensome. I'm aware of the RFA enforcement, which appears to be coming to the conclusion I did - that this is trolling by a variety of skeptics. But if you can point to any of my changes that you think would have been better explained more fully on talk, I'll be happy to clarify. William M. Connolley 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

No problem. Sorry to bother you on this. As I said, I wasn't informed of the other discussion going on. Since the other discussion has beat this horse to death already (and reanimated the horse, beat it to death again, then butchered it, then turned it into dog food) I'm going to defer to what consensus that discussion reaches. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
:-)))) - thanks. William M. Connolley 22:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]


McK

What's with the Mann et al -> MBM? Is that standard format somewhere? Did you get my email? Guettarda 20:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, typo, should be MBH (,Bradley, Hughes). And yes. Did you get my reply :-)? William M. Connolley 20:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, I should have checked my email first :( So what's the origin of that format, and is it really appropriate for Wikipedia? (I replied to your email). Guettarda 20:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MBH98 (and 99) aka Mann, Bradely, Hughes is *the* famous Hockey Stick paper. Err, was that the right question? I am drunk... :-))) William M. Connolley 23:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Nope. It's a question of style. Where does the practice of calling it MBH98 rather than Mann et al. 1998 come from, and is this more widespread in some (sub)discipline (or subculture)? Glad you had fun at the pub. Guettarda 00:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Its fairly common in the literature, if you're going to ref another paper lots of times, to say "Mann et al 1998, hereafter MBH98" or somesuch. William M. Connolley 09:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Interesting. Not in the ecology or science ed. lit. Cultural differences, I suppose. Guettarda 17:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the recent changes to McK, and I have concerns about style (not quite Wikipedish in places; a bit bloggy) and the external links formatting seems to have made a mess. I'm OK with removing the publications list (maybe could have a summary of it, like X economics publications between Y and Z, etc). On the details - I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with them to say anything without really delving into rather more than I have time for. It would perhaps help to make it more chronological, perhaps distinguishing between public discussion timeline (who's used McK's work and when - Inhofe?) and science publication/discussion timeline. Rd232 talk 16:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made some changes, we shall see. William M. Connolley 18:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Pic of the day

Hi William,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Dscn3156-daisy-water 1200x900.jpg is due to make a reapearance as Pic of the Day on Wednesday. I've used the same caption as last time, but you can make any changes at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 16, 2005. -- Solipsist 16:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So good they used it twice... are we short of FP? In which case I recommend Image:Dscn3200-2-butterflies.jpg though I haven't put it through FPC yet, perhaps I should... William M. Connolley 17:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
That's a nice one. But you are right, its tricky to see where to use it. Perhaps something to do with decomposition or food chain.
And yes, in a way we are short of FPs. We need to be promoting > 7 new FPs a week to move to using a fresh one every day on POTD. At the moment, we are promoting at about half that rate. -- Solipsist 17:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Coprophagia maybe? Guettarda 18:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You see, that's the nice thing about Wikipedia, you learn something new every 3.25 days. Many of the articles on Coprophagia (including Wikipedia's) seem to primarily suggest is more or a mental disorder of people and mamals, or more specifically a behavioural problem with dogs. But the dictionary definitions of coprophagy more frequently mentions it as a normal property of some insects and especially the coprophagous beetles. So yes, it looks like quite an appropriate illustration. -- Solipsist 18:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what fun. Now its there, and on symmetry in nature too! William M. Connolley 19:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

The Blytt-Sernander Sequence

Hello Bill. In the next month or so I am going to put some stuff in there on Blytt-Sernander periods, because the archaeology articles need it. I sure hope you will take a good look at it.Dave 02:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Now* [2] I know what B-S is! Do please put it in and let me know. William M. Connolley 21:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Supermarket skin

Hello William. M. Connolley. As someone who understands enthalpy/vapor pressure, if you are able to spare some time I'd appreciate your view (or any other help) on Internal Climate Modification, as my article on Supermarket skin is attracting nominations for deletion. regards Ifca 23:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look. I know nothing about the medical aspects. But... the VFD comment "zero google hits" is going to sink you, unless you can provide some sources (alternative names?). William M. Connolley 00:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
many thanks, helpful info. I've somewhat renamed it, and referenced... + I didn't expect your knowledge on medical aspects, but more to do with 'Internal Climate Modification'/water vapor pressure, etc, if you know of anyone I could ask ? thanks anyway. regards Ifca 06:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

parole violation

for violating your 6 month revert parole I have blocked you for 24 hours, after reviewing the edit histories I have concluded that this is necessary especially due to the number of violations. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 07:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is mad. You are blocking me for reverting what amounts to vandalism, for edits that are fully supported on the talk page, for things that happened 2 weeks ago, in support of a malicious editor (SEW). William M. Connolley 12:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
I have unblocked you since I was not aware of the full facts on the issue when I implemented the block. I apologize for any difficulty this may have caused. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate that. William M. Connolley 21:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Hidden comment

I see you found my hidden comment... ;-) Quite OK to unhide it, I just thought I'd let you decide if it was appropriate. Nice to know that the unfair block was removed - I was about to butt in myself, but not being an admin, I thought I'd better not. Fortunately, others did. BTW, I support the POTD nomination of your butterfly photo - very nice shot! --Janke | Talk 13:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (for the support in both ways). I was going to go and vote on a few myself but the server seems too slow to load anything :-( William M. Connolley 21:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Greenhouse gasses: Post more extensive references list?

Thanks for the very helpful and informative article on greenhouse gasses and climate change. I'm writing a lecture for an intro bio class and it has been very helpful. If you are taking suggestions for future updates, I'm wondering if it would be possible for the references in the article to appear in the references section rather than just as external links. As you are no doubt aware, at the moment the references section is very short and the numbered ref's in the text, while helpful, lead to external links which makes it difficult to reference the sources directly (i.e. by cutting and pasting the Wiki ref's section, rather than by having to go to the referred page and sorting out what the reference is.

Thanks again for your work on the article

Tim

Oh no! You have stumbled across my least favourite subject! Check out kyoto protocol and its talk page :-( Currently, wiki doesn't seem to have a satisfactory reference system that combines flexibility and convenience with a nice ref list. Until it does, I'm on the side of flexibility and convenience. William M. Connolley 21:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris

An RFC has been filed for Duncharris at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris regarding his abuse of administrative powers and behavior toward fellow contributors. If you find time, please cite addition diffs for evidence and comment on this case. Silensor 00:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change Arbitration re-opening request

There is a request to re-open the climate-change Arbitration case, to which you were a party, here. I thought that you might be interested to comment, or at least observe.

Yours sincerely,

James F. (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll add a comment there, when I have a chance to order my words. I hope you will be able to examine SEWs behaviour. William M. Connolley 09:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

User:Ed Poor and admin status

Why do you support Ed Poor remaining an administator when he blocked me for very tenuous and unsupportable reasons? --Joshuaschroeder 17:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like Ed. I also think there is a place for random acts (even of unkindness). I also very strongly think people shouldn't be hounded for one mistake. There is more. OTOH, I've just reverted PC back to your version... William M. Connolley 19:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Bjørn Lomborg

Could you please take a look at Talk:Bjørn Lomborg and give your view on the issue? I'm trying to remove a lengthy quote that's ruining the article. Thanks. Sir Paul 22:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't have anything to do with Sirks, would it? I'll have a look... William M. Connolley 22:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Sadly, it does. It's section 32.3, by the way. Sir Paul 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited there. Hello, BTW. Nice to see another long-haired weirdo on wiki :-). I'm not terribly keen on Sirks, for some odd reason.... William M. Connolley 22:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Many thanks. :-) Sir Paul 03:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

have you seen this yet?

In this the Correas kindly make statements against all of us who partipated in the aetherometry dispute. Not that we should be surprised, but I just came across it and I was wondering if you had seen it. I'm actually laughing over it. -- Natalinasmpf 01:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! I love the book William M. Connolley 10:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the leaders of this neo-maoist cabal for the purification of knowledge are people like William M. Connolley - wow! Shouldn't we create a barnstar for leaders of the neo-maoist cabal? --Pjacobi
We need a Wikipedia:There is no neo-maoist cabal page (no cabal worth its salt would refrain from denying its existence). Guettarda 15:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

You DO realize that you have to create a separate RfC page for each dispute and not just add a name to the User Conduct RfC page, as you seem to have done with SEWilco? The template's on the main page. --Calton | Talk 21:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Sorry for the confusion. I've just had a governors finance meeting but I'm back to the real world now... William M. Connolley 21:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco William M. Connolley 23:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

adminship

Dear WMD--, thanks for your excellent work around the 'pedia. I would like to [re]nominate you for adminship, if you don't object. And have you petitioned the ArbComm to remove your rv 'prohibition'? Cheers, +sj + 04:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WMD--; thats good; I thought it was a typo and was on the verge of correcting it before I actually thought :-) Thanks for your note and much thanks for the (re)nom offer; I still have a long-term goal to be admin, but would like the current kerfuffle to settle. I'm pondering running for arbcommm... William M. Connolley 10:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

AGU

Might you be attending the AGU fall meeting? Dragons flight 09:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly no. I'll be going to Dunedin though... William M. Connolley 11:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

RE: The Deep and policy

The policy is that articles on subjects specific to certain nations take the regional form of English spoken there. Crowley is a Maine-born American. Thus, we'll use "while" in this article. I've also changed the spelling of "medieval," again per this policy.

Please also allow me to remind you that If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it.

Thanks, and happy editing, Telestylo 20:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find that policy, fine. If not, please leave the original spellings alone. William M. Connolley 20:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English

See also the part about uniform spellings. I am reverting the article accordingly. Good day. Telestylo 20:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And are you going to explain to Crowley how to spell Aegypt? And are you going to read If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. And since when has Whilst been US/UK anyway: its archaic/modern, and hence appropriate as whilst. William M. Connolley 20:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Please don't be condescending. I think that most people know that this is a U.S./U.K. difference; I don't think anyone honestly denies that. I maintain that the author is American and should therefore be described using American English. And why would anyone use archaic language in an internet encyclopedia, or any other currently written document, for that matter? (Check your apostrophe usage, as well, since you're interested in "correctness.")

I realized that I had reverted 4 times as I was writing this, but reverted my revert to avoid WP:3RR. This had never happened with me before.

Just a reminder that even though you may have originated the article, you don't own it. I stand by the principles that I used in editing the article as I did. I am certainly not the only one who has these principles, so if you're going to patrol the page forever, you've got a long battle ahead of you. Good luck with that, and spread the wikilove. Telestylo 20:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. I've checked out your edits. Its clear that you are on a mission to rid wikiepdia of "whilst", for whatever reason. But it has nothing to do with policy - are you now going to argue that the Jaquard Loom [3] and [4] are American?

Please don't vandalize

I've tried very hard to stay civil with you, but now I have to ask you to please leave me alone. It's your absurd edit war, not mine. I'd really suggest you read through that well-known meta page I directed you to above. Good luck in the future. Telestylo 21:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't stayed civil - I've had to remove some of your stuff from this page. You *claimed* to be changing whilst to while on the grounds of Crowley being US. So what exactly is your justification on Germanicus or Jaquard loom? You have noticeably failed to provide one. Now, accusing me of vandalism over this is bad: this isn't vandalism: its me reverting your unjustified Cultural imperialism. Please give it up. William M. Connolley 21:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I am on the verge of requesting arbitration about your edits, the most recent of which have been naked personal attacks on me. I have edited in good faith and I think it can be clearly shown that you have not.

Please leave me alone; this is the last such request I will make of you. I will not hesitate to seek redress through appropriate channels if the personal attacks continue. Telestylo 22:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I was thinking of an RFC against you, though not quite so precipitately. I'd advise against RFA: it would be thrown out: you haven't gone through the prior steps. Please note that you have failed (again) to explain why Germanicus (for example) is a US article. It doesn't seem to be. William M. Connolley 22:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
the most recent of which have been naked personal attacks on me
User:Telestylo, note that "personal attacks" are "attacks on the person instead of the argument" (see WP:NPA). People are criticising your approach and methods, rather than you as a person, so these are absolutely not personal attacks. File an RfC on the matter if you so wish, but you'll find the majority of users will not agree with your opinion that anything that has been said to you is personal. HAND. Chris talk back 00:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration re-opened

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 has been re-opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. William M. Connolley 09:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Dscn3200-2-butterflies.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thank you for taking such a great picture for us. Raven4x4x 06:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid! Thanks for letting me know. William M. Connolley 10:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Electric Universe intro comments

Hi William, I left some more comments on the Electric Universe introduction in Talk for your comments. --Iantresman 12:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm going to be too busy for a few weeks to come to this, but may return later. William M. Connolley 18:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Say Hello To Sanchez!

Say hello to SANCHEZ!

I just wanted to thank you for agreeing with me on the Duncharris RfC and helping with my political subproject (please feel free to tell others by the way.) For your kindness, I award you Sanchez, my psychotic pet bear from Latin America. I've told him to be nice, but i'd still pipe in the Samba music 23 hours a day. However, he's great with dealing with any people out there you might have problems with :-) karmafist 05:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He looks like a proper bruiser. Thanks! William M. Connolley 09:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; thanks. William M. Connolley 22:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Realclimate

whoa! you write for realclimate? I read that blog from time to time =) __earth 17:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should hope so too. Yes thats me :-) William M. Connolley 22:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Shreshth91's RfA

Hello William M. Connolley,

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It finally closed with a tally of 22/0/0. I hope I can live up to the expectations of the entire community. If you ever need anything, please just let me know. Cheers!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 00:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Now that my RfA is fully and officially completed, I want to thank you for your support. Since my example of wikistress was arguing with you, it meant a lot to me. -- SCZenz 18:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mindmatrix scam adminship

I have recently been granted greater access to your systems, and can begin the process of salvaging the sensitive information from my politically unstable land, as I promised. Please accept this loonie as a token of faith that I will conduct myself as required to complete our transaction. Thank you for your support. Mindmatrix 20:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. I must support more people and get more messages in return. William M. Connolley 04:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

A friend of yours?

After a talk on the failures of scientists to prepare the country for Katrina, someone got up and encouraged scientists to do more blogging. Of course, much of the audience probably had no idea what that is, but I thought it was cute. Dragons flight 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Interesting. Do you know the identity of the "someone"? I don't know if you read cryolist, but the glacios there are thinking of setting something up a-la RC. William M. Connolley 21:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
No idea, too far away in the room to get a good look. What is cryolist? Dragons flight 23:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco

FYI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SEWilco_and_footnotes_again. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wish he would leave this alone, at least till the arbcomm makes up its mind. In the meantime, I'm going to be off for a few more days. William M. Connolley 09:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia's global warming article mentioned in Nature

Hello WMC, hope you get your internet back soon, but I saw this url cited on Talk:Main page and I happened to come across this article in Nature and thought you might be interested, even though it's very minor....scroll down until you see that screenshot. It's not a big deal really, but then I thought it was an amusing kind of irony (and good proof) about getting something published in a mainstream scientific journal; either it cements the relationship between "fascist neo-maoist Wikipedia cabal" and mainstream science, or it proves that aetherometry must have something wrong in it somewhere to not get into such journals, since it is obvious that a Wikipedia article (one that you have shaped) can get mentioned in it. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 22:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you have heard by now, your arbcomm case made it into the article as well (subsection: 'Challenges of being a Wikipedian') - Guettarda 22:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You know, if only it was always that easy to get my figures into Nature... . Dragons flight 23:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And, that quote by Jimmy Wales: "It takes a long time to deal with troublemakers," admits Jimmy Wales, the encyclopaedia's co-founder. "Connolley has done such amazing work and has had to deal with a fair amount of nonsense." Pretty nifty, congrats. Maybe that should be entered as evidence in the current arbcom case review. Vsmith 23:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All that proves is that Nature and the whole scientific establishment form a crypto-marxist conspiracy! "Users who support Connolley", indeed. As if it would have hurt them them to write "A brilliant European computer scientists and others..." ;-) --Stephan Schulz 23:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... good to see that its come out. One point the article doesn't mention is that the wiki-brit comparison had to be limited to articles of comparable size, which was a severe limitation and was why the GW-type stuff didn't get compared, brit being too short. The Wales quote is nice, though, maybe Vsmith is right! William M. Connolley 12:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I've written a post about this: [5] William M. Connolley 23:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

You do realise the significance of Nature getting 42 of their reviews back, right? The ghost of Adams smiles on us all. Guettarda 23:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this has spawned Wikipedia:External peer review/Nature December 2005/Errors...you're specialise in climate modeling, of course, but you might have some input concerning some of these science articles. -- Natalinasmpf 04:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that. A shame there are no climate-type articles in the list, that would have been more fun. William M. Connolley 09:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

WP:V citations

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 08:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the notification. William M. Connolley 12:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Congrats!

Saw you got your name mentioned in Nature recently. Good work! Borisblue 14:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fame and fortune! Now I need to get my science in... William M. Connolley 12:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Wikiproject

Please DO NOT remove my name again. J. D. Redding 21:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be silly. You are the psuedoscience problem. William M. Connolley 22:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Stubai Alps pictures

Hello, I found some great pictures of the Stubai Alps you added over a year ago to the English Wikipedia (Image:Dscn3342-ls 1200x900.jpg, Image:Dscn3305-lfk-from-rotgrat 1200x900.jpg, Image:Dscn3308-rg-e-from-w 900x500.jpg). I have uploaded them to WikiCommons, as you may already have seen in your watchlist. I tagged the files at the English Wikipedia as {{NowCommonsThis}}, but I have no idea whether I have to mention them somewhere for deletion, as I am not aware of these procedures on the en: Wikipedia. Could you perhaps also check whether I uploaded them correctly to Commons and whether I tagged them over here well as well? Thank you very much! Greetings from Leiden, Tubantia 14:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, glad you liked them, and thanks for uploading them to commons. I must start doing that sometime... I'll check them out on en: William M. Connolley 14:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Arbcomm case

If they made a decision today, you'd get 5 days cut off your parole. Funny. Guettarda

Yes. But more importantly, they would have said that the penalty was wrong, an important point of principle. William M. Connolley 14:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Absolutely. I agree. So are you going to celebrate Boxing Day (or will it be the day after?) by going on a revert-spree? Make an edit, revert yourself, re-reverte yourself... and 3RR doesn't apply when you are reverting yourself, so... :) Guettarda 15:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could we pick a article to have a revert war between us on? :-) William M. Connolley 15:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Sounds like a plan (I'm assuming we'll be by my wife's grandparents, and they have a cable modem). We need something nice and controvertial, so as to be maximally disruptive - or maybe it could be that day's FA. Guettarda 15:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, do you feel like rm'ing the NAS para out of the GW article? I've just reverted myself, since there is no need to push my luck just yet... I should have done it when I took the graph out too... :-( William M. Connolley 16:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

The arbcomm case is now resolved & my parole is revoked... so I could start reverting early... Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2. An early christmas present... William M. Connolley 22:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Happy Xmas! :) Rd232 talk 23:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - take it easy on that revert spree :-)! A decision long overdue. Happy holidays. Vsmith 01:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. William M. Connolley 09:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a New Year filled with all the best (like reverting septics). All the best - Guettarda 15:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 case. Raul654 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, and the decision. William M. Connolley 22:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Congratulations - you actually got three days trimmed off your revert parole. So what about that edit war? :) Guettarda 00:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm feeling too mellow for an edit war right now... lets just hope I'm not speaking too soon! Errrr... well there is that troublesome graph... William M. Connolley 17:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
I suppose with the revert parole off, that makes you a stronger candidate for adminship now? -- Natalinasmpf 04:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so. I just need someone to nominate me... William M. Connolley 11:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I would oppose any such nomination because you have been dishonest... [new section on the graph: "Nrcprm2026's graph" below - WMC] —James S. 05:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a content dispute, I am currently not seeing anything related to behaviour that would affect his capabilities as an administrator. I would be glad to nominate WMC, just didn't want to surprise him first. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 05:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Natalina, I see you have a new sig - celebrating the New Year or your New Status :-)?

Hey, I wanted to read those

Thanks for your comment on my talk page, William. I doubt see also lists should be trimmed just for the sake of brevity. I do agree that irrelevant items should be removed, but please consider the first-time reader who gets to the end of an article and then myst decide what to read next. I think it is very appropriate that global warming be on the see also list for climate change, and I don't think a reasonable person could deny that. The wiki is not your personal research draft; there are plenty of people who have less expertise than you and could use some direction after taking in a long article.

Plus, the things I wanted to read were the external links that you clipped as I was going through them. I hope you didn't take those out again as well. There's plenty of room to have hyperlinks and annotated footnotes both, don't you agree?

Please reply on my talk page. Thank you. James P. S. 19:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transient Coupled Model

This term is being used a lot by climateprediction.net. While I am sure the core team know what they mean by it, it has become apparent that lots of the moderators, site admins and other users don't really understand what is changing. Just wondering if you would like to put your understanding of this term somewhere on wikipedia and point me to it. Thanks and best wishes for 2006. crandles 13:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll look at that. *I* know what I mean by it... William M. Connolley 17:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Right, I've made Transient climate simulation (currently a stub but won't be soon) (Transient coupled model redirects to it). William M. Connolley 20:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Many thanks. I have added some notes to the talk page which seems a better place to discuss it. crandles 23:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ENSO graph

Your wonderful ENSO graph (Image:Soi-1876-2004.png) is now nearly a year old and there is a bit more data. The last month has seen the SOI in La Nina territory which is wonderful since I like rain in an Australian winter.

Anyway, I was wondering if you could a) Update the graph, and b) Add a 36-month running mean. I have no idea how to program in IDL (or anything else for that matter) but, if my reading of the IDL script is correct, it shouldn't take much effort (I hope).--One Salient Oversight 09:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done it (it wasn't much effort...). Now... Image:Soi-1876-2005.png. William M. Connolley 19:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Looks brilliant. Thanks! --One Salient Oversight 03:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troika

I have suggested a small panel of users competent in science to evaluate editors of scientific articles. Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2/Workshop#Troika. Fred Bauder 20:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred - this is an interesting idea. I'll think it over and comment. William M. Connolley 22:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Nrcprm2026's graph

You said that you "seconded" an outside opinion that my extrapolation was reasonable, among other things, and then you tried to claim that you had not seconded that opinion. You have said that the connection between radiative forcing and the increasing strength of storms is weak, but you have provided no statistics in support of that position. You have not proposed any means by which increased atmospheric energy might manifest only as local thermal energy instead of thermal energy and increased windspeed. You have ignored reports of increasing global windspeed which you would be aware of as a matter of course in your profession. Your departure from the norms of honesty, manners, due care, and scientific integrity render you unfit to be an administrator. When will you be honest about the increasing average windspeeds and the incontrovertable fact that they are caused by radiative forcing? You are clearly aware of the basic principles that increased temperature leads to increased evaporation. Why don't you understand that increased evaporation means, all other things being equal, increased precipitation, and thus more laminar and turbulent flow in the atmosphere? I can not see why you do not want to take the lead in explaining these basic principles. —James S. 05:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nr: you accuse me of dishonesty but you're wrong; you're twisting peoples words in a desperate attempt - which it must now be obvious to you is going to fail - to get your pet graph into the wiki climate articles. I said "If so, I second my own opinion, as well as Gavins" - my own opinion was to not include the graph. Gavin did *not* tell you that the extrapolation was reasonable - he *did* tell you that most of the increase is societal; and that the suitability of the graph would depend on context. William M. Connolley 11:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Gavin said:
Costs of weather-related damages are indeed soaring, and if you had added in data up to 2005, you would have found the rises continuing as extrapolated in the graph. However, the *cause* of the increasing costs is not evident from the graph. Analyses for purely US damages indicated that the vast majority of the increase is due to greater development in areas that are vulnerable (coasts, Florida, flood plains, etc.), rather than an increase in storm activity or flood frequency. Data from more widespread sources indicates that most of the rise there too is development related, though there is a possibility of a climate effect. Given that coastal development is unlikely to stop any time soon, it is a pretty conservative assumption to guess that the rise in damages will continue. Estimates of the climate change component of that will likely increase in the tropics, but will likely always be a smaller component than the development change. So in that sense, the graph *itself* has a neutral POV. But you would need to examine the context in which it is used to see whether that package is similarly neutral. I'm not sure that using an Excel curve fitting package really counts as original research (technically I guess it is, but it wouldn't be sufficient for a research article).
Note that Gavin's description isn't quite correct, because the graph that I asked him to comment on seriously underpredicts the preliminary actual for 2005 (plus, I didn't use Excel.) In any case, I also find your description of 66-90% certainty as "weak" troubling. Where do you draw the line on "weak"? —James S. 22:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin doesn't call your extrapolation reasonable. And in any event you're avoiding my main point, that the costs are mostly non-GW-related and so don't belong on the GW pages. As for the attribution: I agree with the IPCC. But thats not what your text originally said. These are subtle matters; your text was subtly wrong. Think about it. William M. Connolley 22:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I disagree with your literal interpretation of Gavin's characterization. And I think the Assoc. of British Insurers report (and the peer reviewed study cited beside it in the exchange you pointed me to) strongly suggests that the costs are mostly non-GW-related. —James S. 10:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the expt subject stuff. Now you need to reconsider the rest. As to the point: if the costs are non-GW-related, then the graph doesn't belong on the GW pages. That was my point. William M. Connolley 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Cold fusion

Hi William, sorry for bothering you, but I wonder if you could help with a problem (since you probably have more experience than anybody on Wikipedia with scientific POV disputes!). The foxes appear to be guarding the henhouse in the cold fusion article. Could you have a look at the talk page, and also Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Cold fusion? I don't know anything about cold fusion (except that the vast majority of the physics community doesn't believe it), and don't really know how to handle the situation of a small cabal of highly motivated people trying to advance their point of view, with nobody able to effectively contradict them. On the cosmology pages, I'm used to knowing the literature as well as anyone, but here I'm lost... obviously, it's not your area of expertise either (unless you're keeping something from us?), but if you could offer some guidance I'd be much obliged. Thanks. –Joke 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Glad that my painful experience might come in useful. I think we've probably crossed edits on this; anyway, what I've done there is probably clear enough! I've commented there. Dealing with a small cabal is best done by raising the issue amongst a larger group of editors, and this has now I think been done, possibly successfully. William M. Connolley 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

CF

Ok, done. I think you're way out of line removing the disputed tag, though. Can we at least discuss this? ObsidianOrder 16:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, we can discuss this - t:CF is the place. I'd like to see a section for discussing the header, with a *concise* list of objections. The discussion there is far too long and diffuse, and mostly applies to different versions of the page, to justify the tag as it stands. William M. Connolley 16:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
William - you must have missed the *concise* list of objections I posted when I first added the tag: Talk:Cold fusion#Problems with the FA version. I think you can understand why I was rather upset when you simply deleted the tag several times without responding to my specific objections? Perhaps, in the spirit of cooperation, *you* can add the tag now? ObsidianOrder 17:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll look over your list. But no, I'm not going to re-add the tag just yet. William M. Connolley 17:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rfa thanks

Hello William. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to be notified on this...

There is someone who is trying to impersonate you so I reported to the admin and have him blocked. SYSS Mouse 21:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me that. He's been blocked now. How curious... William M. Connolley 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I have nominated you for adminship

As I promised, I have nominated you for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2. Good luck - I have a very strong feeling this will turn out well! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 13:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go accept and answer your questions, you'll make a great Admin. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and thanks. Off I go... William M. Connolley 15:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Dbiv listed your RFA, but as I understand it, it should stay delisted until you answer the questions. And, also, I think the timer only starts when you fully accept. So don't forget to list it when you answer the questions, but don't feel any rush to get it done, since it remains "hidden" until such time as you are ready. Guettarda 15:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although by that time you may already have more than the proposed support for Adminship, if the current trend continues. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea level rise

Seems there was a bit of interesting activity at Sea level rise last night :-) And Leuliett had added his explanations to the old altimetry section - I copied his comments to the bottom of the page for findability. Vsmith 16:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that! William M. Connolley 21:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The 3RR question

Hi there. I just thought the answer a little on the too-soft, too-hard side. If someone has been warned before they hit 3RR and carry on regardless, then I'd be surprised if there are many admins who would simply wag a finger. Similarly, if they were warned after their 4th revert, and carried on, a single additional revert would probably be plenty to earn them their block. But that's less important than the original intent of the question. It is intended to ask about what you would do if someone were deliberately gaming the 3RR; obeying the letter, but not the spirit. Your answer didn't seem to address that, but did seem to imply that if someone always, deliberately, reverts at just under 4/24 they acquire immunity. The statement that "If you obey the letter of the law... then its not really my business as an admin", is not really true since misbehaviour of any kind should be squelched, even if it adheres to the letter of rules and such. It's the business of an admin to judge for themselves whether the behaviour needs stopping or not. That's an individual interpretation, however. But a good degree of flexibility of mind is needed to make sure we are not hamstrung by our own procedures. -Splashtalk 23:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I mostly answered not your question. Thats because it reminded me of something I'd intended to say but forgot.
You say If someone has been warned before they hit 3RR and carry on regardless, then I'd be surprised if there are many admins who would simply wag a finger.. But I think you've misinterpreted me. I don't think I've said that. If you mean my First time violators get a warning, what I meant is, they get a warning, and if they continue after the warning then they probably get a block.
As for the "gaming"... this becomes difficult. But in my experience, 4 reverts in 24 hours 5 minutes doesn't get you blocked (and yes I do have experience of this... though I've learnt better now I hope). As an admin (especially as a new one) I certainly wouldn't block someone under 3RR unless they had broken the letter of the law. By then its not really my business as an admin. If the behaviour is repeated, then others need to raise it as a user RFC I guess I meant exactly that: if the not-quite-4-RR'ing continues, then (assuming failure on the talk page) the next step is an user RFC, done by the editors of the page (though as an experienced editor I'd be happy to help; but that's not a task that requires any admin privs). Thats what I'd do as a normal editor if struck by this problem. William M. Connolley 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

Hi Dr. Connolley, I replied to your comments with a few examples of phrasing that has been used in (somewhat) analogous situations to cold fusion. You might want to take a look. -- Pakaran 23:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll go look. William M. Connolley 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sockpuppet at cold fusion

Hi William, the user STemplar who reverted your edits of cold fusion has been created today [6] and it is easy to imagine that it is a sockpuppet. Unfortunately there are too many people who call you Connelly here - like Caroline Thompson and Steve Schulin - so I can't say more. :-) --Lumidek 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi William. No, user STemplar is not a sockpuppet, though he is a newbie. Your witchhunt speaks ill of you Lumidek. STemplar 06:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco

Do you have an opinion regarding this and that? Dragons flight 17:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. I'd half seen the first; not the second. I do wish SEW could stop being a pain. Opinion: I think I'm too close to this to comment neutrally & I won't comment there. I'm sure SEW's RFA-notification-spam was malign; OTOH I incline towards SS's free speech attitude. I'm going to leave a note on his talk page. William M. Connolley 17:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Troika: more

At my RFA, GangofOne asked:

Now concerning the Reddi arbitration, as he mentions below, Fred Bauder launched a "trial balloon" Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2/Workshop#Troika :
"1) Art Carlson (talk \u2022 contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk \u2022 contribs) shall appoint a third user competent in basic science. These three users shall have the power to ban any user who disrupts the editing of articles which relate to science from those articles which they are disrupting. Should either of them decline to serve, the other shall make two appointments...."
This is a rather stunning reversal of wiki customs, I think obviously, in the concentration of power. Art Carlson declined. Dr. Connolley loves the idea however. I am skeptical. But as a suggestion of a way to reassure me and others, I suggested that Dr. Connolley pretend he already had this power and explicitly tell us where he would have excercised it, say in the Reddi edits, or others of the past half a year or so. Surely he must have a good idea of what he would do. That way we could all see the wisdom of his decisions. However, he has not taken up the suggestion, (yet). --GangofOne 14:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I answered:

To answer the troika first: Art was unenthusiastic, but hasn't actually declined. I didn't "love" it: I said However, I think this would be a major policy step. For the record, I'll accept if its enacted, but other less drastic proposals come to mind: ... then this proposal would give the Troika unprecedented powers and I suspect might well lead to community resistance. In other words, I was cautious. I haven't answered your question there, because I don't know what my answer would be. Note, BTW, that it was me that advertsied the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics & at pseudophysics, because I wanted to get reaction from others who would probably be interested but not otherwise have seen it.

There is lots more to say on this; and maybe now is a good time to say some of it.

Firstly, I'm honoured that FB considers me suitable for such a role. And its clear that the arbcomm does need some help in understanding its science based cases. As I've made clear (I hope) on that page, there are other less drastic possibilities for doing this. Before spending more time considering exactly how such a proposal might work were it enacted, I'd like to see more opinion from the arbcomm: so far this is FB's "trial balloon" and if the other arbcomm are going to shoot it down, there is little point considering it further.

Secondly, I had hoped that my comments there were fairly neutral. I certainly repudiate GoO's assertion that I "loved it". I want to see more comment from the other arbcomm: if they feel they need this kind of committee/advice, then we can work to find the best format and powers for it. The proposal, as framed, would give the Troika a lot of power, in some senses more power than the arbcomm. There are no explicit constraints in the proposal; however there is an implicit constraint (apart from the fact that we're reasonable folk) that (a) if we go wild, no admin will enfore what we decide, and (b) IWGW the arbcomm will revoke either the individuals or the proposal.

Template:SCOTWvoter

ArbCom work page

Nice idea for a page - I put up a similar page. I just wondered whether you were aware of the interim results page which is a good way of identifying the no hope candidates who are already well out of the race. Hope you don't mind me spotting the page in your contribs history. David | Talk 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't mind at all: especially since it lead to you pointing out the interim results, which is indeed useful. Thanks! William M. Connolley 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I have moved a user subpage

Hope you will forgive my audacious boldness, but I decided to follow WP:BOLD and thought you would not object to me moving your complaints and endoresements page to "complaints and endorsements" ;-). Just to prevent surprise however, I am of course notifying you here, and you may of course request I revert it if you dislike my audacity. ;-) Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I shall instead offer you my thanks. Again my wife had noticed that last night (she doesn't have an account and refuses to get one, she just tracks me via contribs as a sort of soap opera...) and I said Duuuuhhhh and hadn't got round to fixing it! William M. Connolley 12:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

An article that may interest you

As a spin off from discussions in the talk pages of Shoshone National Forest, I commenced the article Glacial recession and was told that this may be of some interest to you. Anyway, if you're interested, edit away.--MONGO 01:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Its now on my watchlist and I hope to contribute. William M. Connolley 10:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Janusz Karpinski, about aetherometry

Excuse me, please, this is Janusz Karpinski, writing just after midnight on January 13. I am curious why such person as you, obviously a scientist, spends time so without point, quarrelling about aetherometry. Why do you give permission to keep this article in Wikipedia which you can not verify and on a subject which is well known only to few people? An encyclopedia is a bad place for this and it is damaging to the dignity to spend time making such bad blood in such pettyness. Wikipedia has policy that says it should not allow such articles. Is it not that you think that this policy is wise and upholding to dignity? I am writing not only to you but also to other few scientists who are involved in aetherometry fighting now. Also excuse that I am new to writing in Wikipedia.

I think you misunderstand wiki. I don't give permission to keep this article in Wikipedia - how can I? On the contrary, I voted to delete the article [7] on the grounds that it was a waste of time. Sadly I was in a minority. Now its there, it needs to be kept sane as far as possible.
Also - welcome to wikipedia. If you plan to contribute (I hope you do) its a good idea to get an account: its easy, free and convenient. William M. Connolley 10:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, I now made an account and it was easy as you said. But it is hard to contribute because of my not very good English. The time is close to noon on January 13. I looked at the page which you pointed out, in which you voted to delete. It is a very confusing vote because several people changed minds in the middle. But perhaps the people who voted to keep the article did not understand Wikipedia policy. From what I saw, Wikipedia has two policies that do not permit this article. One is called "Undue weight" and says "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Aetherometry is completely marginal and does not belong.

I agree. Hence my vote. However, you are slightly misinterpreting the policy: that is mostly addressing a question of the weight to various opinions within an existing article (e.g. flat earthers on shape-of-the-earth). As you see, it contains an explicit note about ancillary articles; which arguably aeth is.

The other policy is called "verifiability" and says "Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be verified by readers and other editors. "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources." This policy is exactly to prevent unproductive quarrelling back and forth which cannot be solved and is damaging to reputation. Editors by themselves should not have to go and reproduce scientific experiments and study many days to verify that a theory is science or is pseudoscience. If no reliable sources exist for the one view or the other view, the material should not be published. To me it seems that understanding these policies one must vote to delete the article. Otherwise it results in unscientific fighting that cannot be solved with dignity. Sincerely, Janusz.

Here I disagree. The fact that aetherometrists believe this that and the other is verifiable. Whether the theory is true or not is another matter; my opinions there are obvious I trust. It is not true that pseudoscience is automatically excluded from wiki. It is true that pseudoscience should be labelled as such and described in a neutral way and not allowed to pass itself off as accepted. William M. Connolley 17:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Aha, thank you very much for helping in my understanding. But then another question arises for me. You say that pseudoscience should be labeled as such. I see that in the definition of the category "Pseudoscience" it writes: "This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method.". So if the policy applies to this, then also to put the label "pseudoscience" on something requires to "refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher." But if in reputable journals there is nothing published about the field, then it is not possible to support claim that the field is alleged by the critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with scientific method, which has these defining principles in Wikipedia: "The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings and orderings of the following: - Characterizations (Quantifications, observations and measurements) - Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements) - Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypotheses and theories) - Experiments (tests of all of the above)." Please dont think I agree with people like Mr. Zappo. I agree with you that Aetherometry probably is very wrong, because it sounds crazy, but I think this is not enough to say in Wikipedia it is "pseudoscience". Am I misunderstanding? Sincerely, Janusz. 4.156.147.17 18:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC) I learned to do this now.[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&oldid=35046674"