User talk:William M. Connolley/Old Talk 12

Greenhouse Gases
Would you happen to know who is the largest emmiter of greenhouse gases?? I know china is #2 Robert Taylor 23:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I guess it must be the US. Is this a trick question :-)? William M. Connolley 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Spectacular failure
I would suffer a spectacular failure if nominated for Adminship - a spectacular failure that I would quite rightly deserve. If the standard of care is three months since the last incident of over-the-top behavior, I have 2 months, 29 days, 24 hours and 30 minutes to go. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I would make a great admin, because I wouldn't lift the sprotect because that would be pretty much begging for wheelwarring. I think you're wrong but I don't think your eggregiously wrong. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh go on, what are you referring to? No Lott? I couldn't see it, whatever it was... Wheelwarring: no, it wouldn't be since I've explicitly asked people to review as needed. William M. Connolley 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC).


 * Heh. WP:AMA, among many many other instances where I've displayed behavior that would lead many to vote "OMGZ NOT ADMIN MATERIAL." (Personally, I think they're wrong, but I'm certain they'd show) I'd should consider doing it to show "look at the improvement from his last RFA," but I don't think I'd improve all that much. Call me perpetually problematic editor with good intentions. Perhaps in a month. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll check that out later, must go drink beer now :-). William M. Connolley 18:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Image copyright problem with Image:Hubbert-fig-20.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Hubbert-fig-20.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. [trimmed - WMC] -- Longhair 02:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its Fair Use so I've tagged it as such. William M. Connolley 12:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

Image Tagging Image:DSCN3574 coton nice cloud b.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DSCN3574 coton nice cloud b.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear... [trimmed - WMC] -- Longhair 03:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That one is mine so its easy; tagged. William M. Connolley 12:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

original research etc...
Hey WMC, I have a quick question for you. A new user,, is the originator of a theory called the self creation cosmology. It has been published in peer reviewed journals, and he has added it to the non-standard cosmology and self creation cosmology pages. While writing about your own theories on Wikipedia is not exactly encouraged, it's not forbidden either. I don't know anything about it. Although it seems basically legit, it also doesn't seem to be taking the world by storm. If I can get some time (make some time amid my other editing) I could do a little fact checking. But in the meantime, the articles are there, they claim the theory gives us the sun, the moon and the stars (well, actually dark matter, dark energy and the Pioneer anomaly), so I tagged the article and section with OriginalResearch tags, which Garth has (correctly) pointed out aren't quite appropriate. Comments?

Fortunately, Garth Barber seems like quite a nice guy. I doubt if this will devolve like it did on plasma cosmology. –Joke 04:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I guess I'd take each case as it comes. If he is nice, then thats fine, we can work with him. My own view on things like this is that if its got at least a few respectable papers (and indeed cites) then its welcome, just as long as it doesn't try to mis-describe itself as more accepted than it really is. I took out the tag and commented on the page. William M. Connolley 09:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

Strabane Vandal
Hi William. Thanks for your input on Strabane and the unfortunate revert wars. Hopefully you can help me. The anon IP 158.143.182.49 has been vandalising my user page and also leaving abusive messages there. The most recent removing the names of atricles I have contributed to. I know that they maybe with a friend, but maybe using 2 IP addresses have vandalised other users pages too notably Demiurge. Is there anythign that can be done with this? Here is their edit info on my user page.

01:05, 2 February 2006 158.143.182.49 (citation needed)

--Strangelyb 12:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I've blocked that IP for 8 hours (next time BTW its better to post a link to the diff). William M. Connolley 12:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

Anonymous Abramoff Vandal
There is an Anon Abramoff Vandal who has been abusing the article for a week now, he has a wide range of IPs (but consistent mispellings). I would be willing to wager that there is a 90% chance, he vandalizes the article in under 12 hours. --M4bwav 16:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Could be. As I say, I'm watching it & will re-prot if needed. William M. Connolley 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC).


 * Please note, he's back.... Now working from 62.0.139.162.  Thanks for any help. --StuffOfInterest 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You were right :-( I've blocked that one. William M. Connolley 19:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

Request
Hey. I sent you an email with a request. Thanks in advance. --Howrealisreal 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I can do this I think (especially since you've just confirmed that it was really you that wanted it done). Do you just want to keep the current version? May I suggest you backup the text you want to keep somewhere safe, let me know, and then I'll go off and do the dangerous bit. William M. Connolley 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

Okay I'm back; I was out buying some groceries. Yeah, just the current version would be perfect. Everything else from before is safe to be discarded. Thank you again for your assistance. --Howrealisreal 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Done, hopefully successfully. William M. Connolley 10:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

Just wanted to drop you a line and say that it worked! Thank you very much and take care. --Howrealisreal 14:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection etc
Hey William, just wanted to leave you a friendly nag reminder to make sure to list pages you protect at WP:PP. I've added Abramoff and T:Abramoff for you. Best &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 22:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops sorry and thanks: I'm new to this. William M. Connolley 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

If you sprotect talk pages
Then unregistered users have *no way* to discuss the page. I'm not logged in (for reasons that are sufficiently my own) and have been working on the Jack Abramoff page for a while and it's massively annoying not to be able to even comment on the page since you've blocked the talk page--note that I can't add comments to Talk talk:Jack Abramoff because that page doesn't exist.

Please un-sprotect the talk page. The article protection is annoying and imho unnecessary but comprehensible.

When using your admin powers you should operate under a presumption that you shouldn't take away the powers of other users without a strong justification. I fail to see what the justification was to protect the talk page. Again, I'm speaking specifically of the talk page. I'd discuss this with you at Talk:Jack Abramoff, but obviously, you're not letting me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.172.226 (talk • contribs)


 * The page is protected due to persistent vandalism, as you know. And... there are *no* reasons for not logging in. William M. Connolley 22:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC).
 * In certain cases, there are. Some institutions prevent the use of cookies, for example.  Strictly speaking, this is a reason for not being able to log in, rather than for not logging in.  &#9786; Uncle G 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, good one. I have to give you that (if it works: preventing cookies would be tricky, no?). But... clearly thats not the problem in this case, or she would have said so, instead of the dark hints. William M. Connolley 09:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
 * Oh, and please learn to sign your comments! William M. Connolley 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC).
 * I've made you Talk:Jack Abramoff/anon talk, I await the constructive comments there... William M. Connolley 22:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Rathbone
Thanks for the correction!--Vidkun 17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I also corrected the links to the differences to actually show the proper progression. It was my first time using the 3rr template. --Vidkun 19:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, don't mind his request for cites - he asked for cites when I linked to one of his edits and pointed out that his summaries was misleading, and he claimed not to have done his own edit. I'm not sure he realises how the Wiki work. WegianWarrior 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey c'mon, give me some credit :-) I'm not judging the content anyway William M. Connolley 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

3RR
Hi, William! You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Jack Abramoff. Two other Wikipedians, one registered user and one anonymous user, have already been blocked. The rule states you cannot revert a page more than three times within 24 hours. You have reverted Jack Abramoff three times:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Abramoff&diff=38375610&oldid=38375277
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Abramoff&diff=38376124&oldid=38376002
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Abramoff&diff=38376610&oldid=38376490

If you revert it once more, I will, unfortunately, be forced to block you since Wikipedia policy states that all participants in an edit war must be treated equally. Thanks! -- M @  th  wiz  2020  22:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, this is reverting vandalism, so doesn't count. You can tell that, cos I've used rollback. William M. Connolley 23:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC).


 * Oh no, and you've done JoL too! Argh. Mistake. William M. Connolley 23:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I've unblocked JoL and I won't block you. -- M @  th  wiz  2020  23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, panic over... :-) William M. Connolley 23:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Mathwiz2020 also blocked RexNL and seems to have left. Are you aware of why Rex was blocked (was it the Abramoff article?) NoSeptember   talk  23:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for unblocking me, William. RexNL 23:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome (my first wheel-warring! wheel-skirmishing perhaps...). I'll leave a note for Mwiz too. William M. Connolley 23:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

Heads up on Abramoff
I'm trying some "soft security" measures to handle our Israeli friends, by trying to act like I'm interested in engaging seriously with them on this issue--see my commentary at the bottom of Talk:Jack Abramoff. I don't mind them putting stuff up on the Talk page--doesn't hurt anybody, lets them blow off steam. I don't really consider removing Jack Abramoff's religion vandalism -- it's just biased editing/whitewashing. Calling it vandalism just seems to incite the guy, as does blocking the IPs, so I'm willing to try not doing that for a while.

One thing that I find works well in this case is allowing the biased edit stand for a while, like a day, then changing it back. Well, maybe I'm wrong. But people do get bored if we act boring. That is, acting like we fully sympathisize with them and just want to help. But hey, we're constrained by our commitment to being comprehensive and accurate. The Cunctator 05:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay... been busy. OK: I'm happy enough to leave this to you for a bit. What with all the "cyclon B" stuff this is getting a bit personalised (on their side); it might well help if I backed out for a bit. So... over to you! William M. Connolley 17:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

Jim16
''Hi. I've removed you 3RR report of Jim16, since it wasn't. Secondly, your repeated reversion of his talk page looks dangerously like harassment. The history is there, if anyone wants to check it, and since its blank, they will. People have special priviledges on their talk pages.''


 * I mean... what is this about? Even if he is blocked he still gets to edit his talk page. What exactly were you threatening him with?


 * And why the stuff about repeated blocks, when he has never been blocked ? 

Yours puzzled, William M. Connolley 20:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was my understanding from discussions with other editors that blanking one's talk page&mdash;especially if one does so to avoid answering to accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry&mdash;is a violation of policy. The note about blocking was an error that I failed to catch. If indeed my understanding of policy is incorrect, I will withdraw all current and future objections. Radio  Kirk   talk to me  21:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, its a grey area. See this for some discussion. But I've never seen anyone blocked for 3RR on their own talk page. If you think its policy, you really ought to find it, written down, before issuing such strict warnings. Blanking your own page is definitely *uncool* though, but being uncool is not an offence. William M. Connolley 21:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC).


 * Alright. If I misread this page, then it's my own fault. I'll defer. Radio  Kirk   talk to me  21:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Frog skeleton
Can you clarify for me whether Image:Dscn1922-frog.jpg depicts a fossil or recent preparation? Thanks, Samsara contrib talk 10:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't say for sure. Its from the natural history museum in Oxford. I would be rather surprised if it were a fossil - it is just presented as an example of a skeleton, along with turtles, snakes, etc. William M. Connolley 13:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Joke's RfA
Hi William, thanks for your support and kind comments in my (successful) RfA! Oh, and thanks for all the other help you've been whenever I have a question. –Joke 16:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, best wishes for your adminship. And as some people were kind enough to say of me: dont neglect the science! Speaking very loosely of which, have you looked at Heim theory? William M. Connolley 16:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the thing I'm more likely to neglect is the adminship. How can I get any editing done with all these extra buttons in my way!? Seriously, I haven't looked at Heim theory, although I've noticed it lurking in my peripheral vision. Is it as scary as aetherometry? (Incidentallly, I thought it was brilliant when semiprotection was introduced a while ago. A lot of effort could have been saved editing and reverting that damn page if it could have been protected from anonymous editors.) –Joke 04:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Rathbone on Freemasonry ... again
William, Could you check out the Freemasonry page. We continue to have 3rr issues with Basil Rathbone. You blocked him a few days ago, and as soon as the block was lifted he returned and started up all over again. Today he is at it with another section. I would post the violation information myself, but I can not figure out how to do so. Thanks. Blueboar 17:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Reported again, as noted here.--Vidkun 17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sadly so. I've blocked him again. William M. Connolley 17:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC).
 * Something needs to be done. Rathbone's got an obsessional POV.  He posted a few days ago on his talk page:  "[User:MSJapan|MSJapan]] is requested to post here a list of any and all Grand Lodge Officers who are editing Freemasonry related pages on Wikipedia, or who have discussed the editing of Freemasonry related pages on Wikipedia, or who have directed Freemasons to edit Freemasonry related pages on Wikipedia."Basil Rathbone 16:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My reply: That's easy. none. MSJapan 21:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * His followup: And we thought Freemasonry had no 'hidden master'...Basil Rathbone 05:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea where he got that from. Now, he's blanked his talk page and has another similar "Masonic membership request" on it.  The fact is, he is going to see a conspiracy where none exists, I'm reasonably certain that he is a User:Lightbringer sockpuppet, and if somehow he is not, his edits are clearly bad faith POV-pushing.  He doesn't care about what's relevant; he thinks he's going to deal a severe blow to the Fraternity by by forcing 130 year old irrelevant historical material into an article where doing so can't be justified.  I for one am getting tired of the entire situation - these things tie us up for weeks going in circles and then the article sits there and can't get worked on.  There's definitely puppetry going on; there's no way we should be getting a succession of people who do nothing but go after the Freemasonry article like we have been getting.


 * Mediation clearly isn't going to work, and discussion has not and continues not to work. What can be done, short of waiting a month for Arbcom to do something like last time? MSJapan 14:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, don't worry about his talk page. He can blank it, and put up as many requests as he likes: it makes no difference. I'm afraid I haven't followed the who-is-what debate; but it would certainly be good form if anyone with a masonic membership who was editing the freemasonry pages put a note about their affiliations on their user pages, or somewhere else visible.
 * Secondly, I think you are going to have to prepare for a certain amount of pain in this (but don't be put off!): arbcomm or otherwise. Keep posting 3RR's, and when they are complex try to make them helpful (the hist looks rather complex at the moment: what is SnF up to?). If there is suspicion of sockpuppetry (especially if its from a previous arbcomm case, which this is?) then there is a page somewhere where you can post requests for checkuser. William M. Connolley 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC).
 * The page you might want is Requests for CheckUser. But. It has a backlog, and people are only going to respond for *serious* vandalism. William M. Connolley 19:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC).
 * Actually, AFAIK, everybody's got a user box who is supposed to have one (I believe there are a few individuals who have them who aren't as well, but big deal). Basil just prefers his ideas over fact, and he is actually at it yet again, misleading edit summaries and all.  I've already done two reverts, so I'm out after the next one, and I believe that should make a 3RR again for him.
 * The administrative backlog is the real problem - I asked for a usercheck a while ago on two users, and the users have both since left one after the other, which I think proves me correct in my initial sockpuppet assumptions (which is why I asked for the check in the first place).
 * SnF seems to have become as vehement a pro-Mason as the anti-Masons are, and I think it is because he is fed up with all the circular discussions and blatant ignorance of fact that keeps going on, especially since we get "this article sucks, fix it" and the same person then derails everything so we can't fix it, or we get blatant vandalism (which is the downside to a visible history). So it's a difficult situation. MSJapan 16:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Review
Review, please - I ask you because you blocked the disruptive anti-mason. As a total outsider to the situation, it's reasonably clear to me that there's a serious POV-block problem there. I'm wondering if you see the same thing. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be doing your best to get people to talk, and the page is currently protected, so it seems fair enough for the moment. I'll watch. I notice that you haven't blocked Basil after the latest 3RR report: was that cos its pointless, now the page is protected, or because everyone seems to be reverting with minimal talk? Or are they nott 4 reverts... I didn't bother check, because of the prot. William M. Connolley 18:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC).