User talk:William M. Connolley/Old Talk 8

Political Impact
Hi William, it seems that your efforts on the global warming articles even have a political impact :-)

"My staff is bogged down with work. Often, I have to do my own research," says Tan as he waves a printout on global warming from Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia, which he wants to use for a House debate." from:

-- mkrohn 11:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocking bug
Oh, one other thought (not sure if you'd see this on WP:AN/3RR):

One thing you might want to check - when you go to Special:Preferences it should list your "internal ID number" - if that number is the same as the one in the autoblock (#19934) that would probably we worth noting in any bug report. Noel (talk) 18:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule
You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 19:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ice Cores
Thanks for your correction to ice core. That'll teach me to properly read the articles I'm editing :) Tonderai 16:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 18:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Thats OK. It helps to work opposite one of the EPICA scientists :-) but everyone else is welcome too.

Three revert rule
You have been blocked for 12 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 04:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From RL
nb: RL's message edited for overfamiliarity & other stuff

William M. Connolley ... deserves credit for both educating hoi polloi (the masses) and actually doing serious research...

But query: does [WMC] receive funds from the Green Party of England or its sympathizers? raylopez99 17:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 19:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)) No.

Life in extreme environments
Hi William,

Maybe its more of a biology question, but I thought you might have some insight. I'm trying to find an article to place this picture. I see it as illustrating 'the tenacity of life in extreme environments'. It can't really go on Extremophile, but biome seems a little unspecific. Any ideas? -- Solipsist 13:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 15:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Hmm. I'm not a bio of course... could it perhaps go into desert/climate? Desert has an veg section. Other than that...
 * Thanks, I'd thought about desert too. Xerophyte might be an idea, but as we don't know what the plant is, it is difficult to be sure. -- Solipsist 20:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry to intrude, but I was wondering what you meant by "but we don't know what the plant is"? Are you unsure if the species is what you say it is, or are you unsure if that species is a xerophyte?  If it's the latter, I suspect it wouldn't be too hard to verify (though anything that can live in Death Valley is likely to be a xerophyte unless it is an ephemeral).  Guettarda 21:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A bit of both. I think mav would be interested to know the species, and although I would guess anything living in Death Valley would have to be a Xerophyte, I don't know enough botany to be sure that was right. -- Solipsist 21:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
I've replaced your figure with a version a little nicer on the eyes. Dragons flight 04:56, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

solar feedbacks
I agree with Cortonin, there are a significant number of papers discussing whether other solar feedbacks exist. I could put together a bibliography of several dozen without having to try very hard. That doesn't mean these papers are neccesarily correct, but in my opinion they are numerous enough to deserve mention. Dragons flight 00:45, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 18:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)) I disagree, because "significant" in this context is wrong. There are a fairly small number of papers, all uncertain. Fortunately C has dropped sig.


 * I'm happy to drop the "significant" as well, but I would still disagree that it is a small body of literature, with Svensmark, Marsh, Tinsley, Yu, Palle, Kaas, Kristiansen, Shaviv, Bond, Harrison, Sun, Mangini, Udelhoff, Cess, Kniveton, Todd, Wagner, Pudovkin, Erogrova, etc. the number of people and papers contributed to this area of research is certainly not trivial, and at least some of the authors/papers portray themselves as quite certain. (Though their critics may come out sounding just as certain against them).  Perhaps you have not tried to keep up with this area of research?


 * P.S. I still intend to go back and argue with C over some of the other points he is trying to make, but that is a longer discussion, and I haven't found the time.  Dragons flight 19:17, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 18:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)) It probably depends on how you measure, and what against, and how much you count. Measured against the papers that get the major effect from GHGs, the papers are small (in number, and quality) and contradictory.

Horticern
Perhaps one way to end the greenhouse effect revert war between yourself and Cortonin would be to ask Olivier J. Jolliet to render his opinion. Jolliet is an assistant professor in sustainable development at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology-Lausanne and is the lead author of the Horticern paper that Cortonin has been citing as the basis for his deletions of the section on "Real greenhouses." He has a web page with his biography and email address at http://gecos.epfl.ch/lcsystems/Fichiers_communs/Personnel/Jolliet/Jolliet.html

I suspect that if asked, Jolliet will agree that his paper does not provide support for Cortonin's position. --Sheldon Rampton 05:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 19:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)) I thought of that. I mailed him, but no reply.


 * Heh, I almost wrote an email yesterday too, but could not find his email. Thanks :-) -- mkrohn 20:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 20:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)) Well, if you both wrote too, that might jog him!

Taken By Storm
We're seeing a debate on a SourceWatch article where I think you might want to comment. The debate is on the [talk page for Taken by Storm, the book by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick which argues there is no global warming. Essex and McKitrick argue:


 * In the absence of physical guidance, any rule for averaging temperature is as good as any other. The folks who do the averaging happen to use the arithmetic mean over the field with specific sets of weights, rather than, say, the geometric mean or any other. But this is mere convention.

This claim has been critiqued by Tim Lambert, and Lambert's critique has in turn been challenged on our talk page, by an anonymous contributor who says that Lambert failed to understand the "key part of the argument" made by Essex and McKitrick:


 * taking the temperature of something which is not in thermal equilibrium has no theoretic underpinning in science because you're trying to convert an infinitely fine four dimensional temperature field (because it changes over time because its not in thermodynamic equilibrium) into a single number. Without a coherent theory that says how to do that, what you end up with has no physical meaning - it does not represent energy or anything else.

Feel free to weigh in if you have anything to contribute. --Sheldon Rampton 21:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Philip Stott
Hate to spread the "war", but I think the Philip Stott article is sorely in need of balance. I will try to focus back towards his contribution to biogeog, but I don't know the political side at all. Thanks. Guettarda 19:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 20:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)) The article is a mess, as befits something written by JG. But, its pretty obviously PS's POV on it... looking at it, I decided to try chopping it heavily, but not adding any counter-truth. What do you think?


 * Well, it's a fairly extreme pruning, but it achieves balance. He is notable as a biogeographer (achieved a lot editing J. Biogeogr., but I must now ask myself whether his POV influenced the content of the journal); looking at what came up when I googled him he also seems to be the media's favourite anti-(everything) crackpot...but quite honestly I knew nothing about him until it came up on the ArbCom thing (is that where JG heard of him too?  That's about when he wrote the article).  I regularly read J. Biogeogr., but I don't pay attention to journal editors unless I know their pubs.  Guettarda 21:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Random words of thanks
Hey, just dropping by for a word of thanks for your blog, and your involvement in RealClimate, and wikipedia. (I only just discovered that you were a wikipedian...) You've helped me alot, particularly with researching stuff about the role of water vapour in the greenhouse effect. So, er, you rule!--Fangz 23:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 22:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)) Thanks for your kind comment!

Real greenhouses
I did some modifying to the greenhouse section of greenhouse effect, trying for some variation in the reverts :-). Cortonin immediatly imported his rather distorted version from solar greenhouse (technical) (which I had deleted from there) - aw well at least now we have some variety in the reverts. Enjoy. Vsmith 15:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 22:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)) I'll take a look, I've been off for the weekend. Interesting events over at the arbcomm...

Experts and wiki
Noticed you starting to write something on experts and Wikipedia, and thought I'd share a thought. Generally, I agree with Larry that experts ought to be given more respect. However, experts sometimes have bias problems. They know a lot, but they're too close to their own subjects. Then, they won't accept criticism from other editors, because those editors are not experts. My personal experience of this is User:Levzur, who believes that his Ph.D. lets him ignore other editors and write all of Wikipedia to his own POV, even when mainstream scholarship is solidly against him.

Looking forward to reading your thoughts. Isomorphic 22:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 22:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)) Hmmm, yes, I look forward to ordering my thoughts into a comprehensible form so I can put them down onto wiki. I think I have something valuable to say about this, but I struggle to express it. I too agree that experts ought to get more respect, but then I am one... then again, there are experts and experts. Certainly, being an expert ought to mean knowing whats in the literature and editing with it, not against it. I'll keep working on the thoughts, especially now I know that some people at least are reading them!


 * I'm interested in reading (though no necessarily participating in) this discussion, too. El_C 23:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin
Given the fact that only two of the people involved in the longstanding dispute over the climate change articles are in this case, any arbitration action against either of those two will likely not be effective in stopping these edit wars - even temporarily. After giving several days for my fellow arb com members to object, I now ask you to file a new request for arbitration against other users you feel have been part of these edit wars for some time. Don't bother naming people on 'your side' of the dispute; I'm sure the other party to this case will do that. File at Requests for arbitration, creating a section for 'Climate change dispute' (or adding to it if the other party has already created it) and ask for that dispute to be added to your case. --mav 13:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 16:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)) OK, thanks. At the present time, I'll add JonGwynne, having (it would seem) resolved my differences with SEW. [Now added].


 * (William M. Connolley 17:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)) PS: I'm not at all sure about your "any arbitration action against either of those two will likely not be effective in stopping these edit wars - even temporarily". Obviously, my "side" is right :-). As to the other side: the recent burst of nonsense-wars has largely been due to Cortonin/JG. Other skeptics are generally prepared to be reasonable, although SEW verges on the silly sometimes (MWP/LIA) and shows a distinct lack of respect for expertise.

Temporary injunction
Copied here from Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin:

Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin      by William M. Connolley      Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case.

--mav 22:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule
You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 00:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Mountain infobox changes
Hi. We are currently discussing changes to the layout of the Mountain infobox used by WikiProject Mountains as well as moving back to the use of templates for the infobox. If you are interested, check out WikiProject Mountains/General. RedWolf 05:12, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 20:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)) Thanks, had a look, I think I'm going to leave it up to you lot, being a bit busy elsewhere. Hopefully I'll get some climbing done sometime and rekindle my interest...

Image:Sealevel.png
Sometime in the next week or so, I am planning to put together a data driven plot of sea level during the last 20 kyr. I am tempted to just overwrite your figure Image:Sealevel.png, but I didn't want to do that without asking first. If you would like to preserve your plot, just tell me and I'll give mine a different name, but I do think your figure will probably be redundant in the sea level article. One difference though, my plot probably will not show the rate of change, one of the trade offs for having greater detail is that the rate of change gets more variable and I think it would clutter the figure to include that as well as the sea level data points used to constrain the curve. Dragons flight 22:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 13:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) A better plot would be an excellent idea - thank you. But, it seems unnecessary to overwrite the old one, which (with its rate of change) may still be of some use. So could you use a different name?

Arbitration Committee case merged
The Arbitration Committee has accepted the case against JonGwynne to be merged with the current case at Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin. Please bring any additional evidence you may have to Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

From Ed: new project
You asked to be notified. As promised, you are the first one I'm telling about the Encyclopedia Project that I'm in. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 21:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) Thanks for telling me. I shall certainly go and have a look.

I keep forgetting that you're famous. Hmm. What's it like being notable, and yet remaining modest about that? I don't know too many people like that. Yet another reason I'm proud to count you among my friends. Well, keep "cool", doc! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:55, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 21:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)) Thanks Ed. Its nice being notable, though I doubt the fame bit, but I'm working on it. Thanks also for the changes on the RFC, even if I'm not quite there yet. I looked at the new encyc: I guess its just a shell at the moment? I couldn't make it do anything.


 * Yes, sorry, I'm afraid you won't be getting in unless they hire you as a writer. The initial plan is to keep everything under wraps until 2008. Naturally, I'm pushing for an interim release at a much earlier date. But I'm only tech support, I don't make policy.


 * Oooh! Maybe they'll get Fred Singer to write the global warming article. If so, would like to get an advance copy? (For comments and criticism, of course. And only if they let me.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah... I hadn't appreciated that. 2008 is quite a long way away. Um, I've seen quite enough of FS's writing, I don't think I need to see any more :-)

Speedy delete
The problem was that Ssmr doesn't meet the Criteria for speedy deletion (and, of course, "redirects are cheap"). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 21:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)) Yes it does: general, number 7: Any page which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the page was edited only by its author.. Of course it doesn't fit that any more :-(


 * (William M. Connolley 22:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)) But... this is trivia, and there are better things to do! So don't worry about it (if you were...). "This matter concerned him not one whit; At once, he had forgotten it..." (from the ballad of Jon Diamond, by Francis Roads).


 * That'll teach me to reread pages before pointing other people in their direction... sorry. Still, redirects are cheap, and I always think that if the creator of the page can make a mistake, less knowledgeable people are even more likely to make it, so the redirect could turn out to be useful.  Still, I can speedy it if you still want it to be (my edit doesn't count, surely &mdash; you made the request before I'd stuck my big feet into it). Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 22:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)) No no, by now I think we can leave it. Save your energy for Ross McKitrick :-)

SEPP
Also, you removed:


 * The SEPP site appears to be becoming out of date: it lists three science advisors who are dead (William Mitchell, William Nierenberg and Michael J. Higatsberger); the "key issues" page  says that "weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever" - this has not been true for some years (see satellite temperature measurements). The "New on the web" and "The Week That Was" links are kept up to date. For reports and analyses of particular publications, it is probably best to search the site on one of the authors.

on the grounds that it was questionable. Why was it questionnable? Do you think they are alive? Do you think that having dead people listed on your board of directors is irrelevant? Do you disagree with the satellite stuff? I'm a bit confused about what you're trying to do.


 * I think it is of questionable neutrality. It sounds like the authors of the article are ganging up on SEPP, saying, not only does their web site suck, but they are factually incorrect about global warming.  While these claims may both be true, they don't seem very neutral.  I will attempt to tweak the wording, and in general, to fix the article, as you requested. -- Beland 02:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

US Politics and CC
Thought you might be interested:


 * Bush official altered scientific reports on global warming: report


 * WASHINGTON (AFP) - A White House official with no scientific training reportedly edited government climate reports to play down the links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, according to internal documents...

--Ben 09:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yes I am interested. Also http://www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp?Id=1900. I'm just wondering what to do with it...


 * Golly, almost as bad as IPCC officials with political axes to grind editing independent scientific reports to play up the links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, according to scientists whose words were deleted / misconstrued. (See IPCC controversy). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Lomborg article
William, could you take a look at the latest changes to the article on Bjorn Lomborg []. They don't seem appropriate to me, in that they claim unspecified critics of Lomborg to be in error, but don't give any more support for this than a link to a letter to the Scientific American. As a newbie, I don't want to go in and reverse the changes, in case they are OK or some different action is appropirate.

John Quiggin


 * Hi John - good to see you about. If you're interested, you can just wade in. Explain what you've done on the talk page if you feel doubtful. The BL page... is likely to be a mess, since it gets fought over. I'm reluctant to get involved (though I'm watching) till the GW mess is sorted out. BTW, don't forget to sign your name: ~ - use 4 tildas. William M. Connolley 08:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC).

The Unsigning One
Oh, yeah, the dark sides of Wikipedia. But for one point, Mr. X is right: the problem is already enshrined in policy. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, even if best intended, now serves as defense for every crackpottery. And even perfectly good articles become fat. Simply too large. Until recently, I didn't see that problem, but we had some heated discussions on this on de.wikipedia, and now even a fork has been started, to fight (amongst other things) overweight articles. --Pjacobi 21:30, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)


 * Wiki-is-not-paper isn't the end of it, there really is no policy one way or another, and most people still accept the 32k-is-about-the-limit. So... I think that particular anon just isn't going to talk (or rather, will talk forever but in circles). But if The Good Guys|Gals can agree, things should be OK. I'm inclined to give it a day or two, and if no-one else weighs in, refactor along the lines on talk. William M. Connolley 21:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).


 * The 32k limit is double-edged sword. You can use it to fight the articles getting huge, but it will be used to enlarge the topic's treatment by metastasis. --Pjacobi 07:00, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

I think the 32k limit is just aesthetic. It keeps the taxonomy and outlined argument (in the encylopedic formalised, NPOV sort of argument) succint. The reader can read about the general sections, and an overview, then increasingly go to more specific sections, rather then the reader have to sort out an extremely overwhelming page with a lot of detail that could be moved to their own articles for aesthetic reasons (apoptosis is an example of something that should be split off into their own articles for specific detailed sections). -- Natalinasmpf 22:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WikiGo
Since I see you're a Go player, have you seen WikiGo? Thought you might be interested. Not too many active participants currently, but that's exactly why I wanted to bring that to your attention. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 22:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It only gets worse
If you want to increase your Wiki pain, I suggest these candidates for your watch list: Pjacobi 18:59, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
 * Aetherometry
 * Aetherometric Technologies
 * Experimental Aetherometry
 * Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity

Sigh. Still (in pursuit of the sanity of wiki and the promotion of science not non-science) I'm prepared to try to help. It would be nice if the admins were prepared to help by applying the 3RR rule... there is some curious reluctance there that I simply don't understand. My suggestions:


 * Create a "complete and utter b*ll*cks" tag: "this article is total twaddle; having said that, we're prepared to let the wackos have their say: read on at your peril..." and then leave the rest of it alone. Fun, but... that sort of article really needs to be...
 * Put them up for VFD
 * Make certain articles only editable by registered users. Is this possible? It might help.

William M. Connolley 22:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).

I've been bold. I've made the last 3 into redirects to the first. It looks to me like these are just commercial spam, anyway.

It IS commercial spam, and probably snake oil too, and pseudoscience...it reminds me of all the "activated oxygen" links you find on google, and conspiracy theories about no landing on Mars. I'm going to put it up on vfd. I'm normally an inclusionist, but this article would well undermine the professionalism of Wikipedia, and we also do not need more ignorance and corporate propaganda being thrust onto the masses. -- Natalinasmpf 23:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I give up. I've tried reasoning with some of the Aetherometry supporters, but obviously they think my "disputes of validity of the theory are not substantial", and they think their (indirect citation) of sources of Tesla and Reich is far more valid than peer review. -- Natalinasmpf 18:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't give up. We need people to keep wiki sane. But also, don't expect too much (as I perhaps did over GW). Just because you're right doesn't mean your views will prevail... come and help at Nikola Tesla. William M. Connolley 18:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Hmm, Helicoid now proceeds to go around to everyone who disagrees with him/her, and labelling them a "mao-mao", even to me, which is incredibly ironic given my views. He or she thinks that criticism of the reliability/validity of a scientific theory is censorship. Should I try explaining this, or will it just not be worth it? -- Natalinasmpf 22:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 23:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your adminship, I know you'll be valuable. William M. Connolley 08:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).

help with classifying clouds
Since you would have knowledge in the area I need some help with classifying clouds seen in these images, Image:Mount Kinabalu Clouds 1.jpg, Image:Mount Kinabalu Clouds 2.jpg and Image:Mount Kinabalu Clouds 3.jpg, and the clouds might of course be different for each picture and within each picture as well. I felt they should be included somewhere where they could be useful, but for example, the cloud article is already saturated, but I don't know where the further classifications of pages they could go to. (In case it suddenly seems weird, the photos were taken from an altitude of 2500-3000 metres in Sabah, Malaysia from a mountain.) Thanks! -- Natalinasmpf 20:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sadly, I have to decline this - my knowledge of cloud types is near zero. I'll take a look later but douht I'll be of any use. William M. Connolley 08:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Nikola Tesla edit
Hi William. It seems that our edits have just clashed: sorry about that. I was not trying thwart your efforts at removing the sentimental stuff - my goal was to clean up the clumsy "Tesla this, Tesla that" syntax of the first section.

To avoid further mess-ups, I shall refrain from editing that article until tomorrow, to let you get on with your job. --Heron 20:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No! Don't stop: I've just about run out of reverts for today so won't be editing further... sorry for too for the clash William M. Connolley 20:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).

OK, I'll carry on if I need to, but my edits have survived for several minutes and I don't want to push my luck. ;-) On a quiet day I might try to delete the meaningless "He was ahead of his time, and many of his ideas and concepts are just only recently coming to fruition." --Heron 21:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The list
After our lovely List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories got some flak and User:Tim Starling, original creator of the list, argued for retreat, so I've placed the physics section at WikiProject Physics/List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories, but it didn't get a warm welcome, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics. What's your opinion? --Pjacobi 20:30, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)


 * I've commented, and even reformatted the list a bit... William M. Connolley 21:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Able to play a quicky?
Care to be white on the big board whule waiting for nat on the 9 by 9 ? I'm thinking of a quicky fininishing off that prior game. Or maybe you'd rather be black ? or a second 9 by 9? again ... sometime completed within an hour. I'll be on line looking for an answer for the next hour or so. 4.250.27.82 22:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm yeah, except I was initially playing as white on that large board all along. Which is no problem (its supposed to be colloborative), but I was wondering if you realised. -- Natalinasmpf 23:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is about my last edit for the evening... see you tomorrow. William M. Connolley.


 * Well, I guess you didn't get your answer in an hour. If you start a 9x9 I'll be white. You can have a handicap if you like. William M. Connolley 21:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Climate dispute arbitration case
A final decision has been reached in the climate dispute arbitration case. &rarr;Raul654 14:57, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Uh....sorry to nitpick, but having to pass by, I couldn't resist inquiring, you mean "conclusion", right? Not "final dispute"? -- Natalinasmpf 18:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Doh - dispute -> decision. &rarr;Raul654 19:27, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification, which is noted. William M. Connolley 19:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC).

lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) June 28, 2005 04:20 (UTC)


 * Let me know if you ever become uncontrovertial enough to give it a shot and I'll nominate you. Guettarda 28 June 2005 14:16 (UTC)


 * I've starred myself. Not the best time to do it, just after an arbcomm case, but anyway. William M. Connolley 2005-06-28 20:13:38 (UTC).

MM and the papers
Don't have to tell Natalinasmpf to watch the article, just because you cannot read the bio of Einstein's wife. There is a question and it's noted in the article. 216.185.232.142 28 June 2005 23:45 (UTC)


 * Attributing the papers jointly to E-M is absurd. Wiki isn't here to help you push fringe theories. William M. Connolley 2005-06-29 08:51:14 (UTC).

Great work on Unified Field Theory
Your list of articles and subjects is extremely entertaining, I liked the stringent removal of irrelevant links from entry on "Unified Field Theory". It is of course a small drop in the Wiki-ocean, but I feel like THANKS! Thank you very much for contributing. User:Donald_j_axel --d-axel June 29, 2005 20:54 (UTC)
 * You're kind: thank you. William M. Connolley 2005-07-01 20:32:12 (UTC).

Category:UK Wikipedians
Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 21:21 (UTC)


 * I'm pleased that there are now so many of us! Thanks for cat'ing me. William M. Connolley 2005-06-30 22:18:03 (UTC).

William Connolley
Sorry mate if I've been a little short with you and presumed you were being vain.


 * OK

I just don't think you're notable.


 * Thats all right - I'm *not* complaining about which way you voted, just how you did it.

I have written several articles on academics here, and I think we're lacking them, but you haven't claimed to have done anything of note. What you believe isn't important, when it's an accepted paradigm, what you have done is. When you're a professor I'll support you. But until then I think you ought to consider showing a little humility as per Jimbo and his page and oppose the creation of your own page.


 * Well I didn't start it, and I haven't added much to it. I disagree, though, as to "what you (I) believe isn't important". Having the opinions of people on their wiki pages is perfectly sensible. And note that I didn't write that - Ed Poor did (in fact the creation of this page was a ploy of his in the Great Climate Wars, but thats old history now).

I agree on the climate change mess, and having to deal with creationists and eugenicists is also a pain in the arse. Dunc|&#9786; 1 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)


 * Not forgetting the Tesla-philes too... :-( William M. Connolley 2005-07-01 10:52:53 (UTC).


 * Couldn't he have found someone notable to write about though? If I wanted to support points about evolution I write about John Maynard Smith or Geoff Parker or someone like Brian Charlesworth. use an appeal to authority fine, and express your credentials on talk: but you shouldn't write an article on your mate in an attempt to bolster your own position.


 * I'm finding it rather hard to continue to assume good will on your part. Certinly, you're hopelessly ignorant about the situation. Ed didn't create the page to bolster my position, but to bolster his own, opposed, position. Go check up the history of global warming around that time, if you want to know what was going on. But *please* find it out before commenting further on this. William M. Connolley 2005-07-03 19:40:57 (UTC).


 * The notability guidelines ought to be the same for everyone regardless of whether they are WPians or not. I think this actually demonstrates the need for more precise guidelines, and I'm still disappointed that you haven't got good sense to oppose it yourself. Dunc|&#9786; 1 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)

an inquiry on the communication protocols of the scientific community
I was reading this which is the supposed rebuttal to DeMeo's claims by the Correas, and I was rather...shocked. Do competing scientists always react to each other's works in this way? I assumed that those holding significant degrees would have been selected for civility tendencies and courtesy, and there was a fair degree of civil protocol in the scientific community. I'm just wondering if this kind of mudslinging is commonplace, (as I have never witnessed it to this extent before), or it's something only confined to the Correas and their critics. Noting that probably half the language would probably not be something eligible as a legal document, I always thought that even scientists with opposite views, competing projects et al always treated each other cordially and while criticising each other's work (as any good peer reviewer would do) at every turn, I always assumed that personal attacks were out of bounds. I'm just confirming that this is something confined to the Correas right, and not the rest of the scientific community, I hope? -- Natalinasmpf 1 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)


 * You say the Correas ... and not the rest of the scientific community and I think the mistake you're making is to think that the C's *are* part of the sci community. What evidence is there for this? They claim a Phd - they may even have one, but from where and for what? - but you don't put your credentials on a paper. In scientific journals everyone is always polite, of course, with only a very few exceptions. William M. Connolley 2005-07-01 19:02:10 (UTC).

Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide
I have attempted to create a figure showing changes in carbon dioxide during the last 500 million years. You have expressed interest in this information in the past.

Image:Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png

The uncertainties involved may actually be somewhat less than my past impressions had indicated. Which is to say they are only very large, rather than enormous.

Dragons flight July 2, 2005 19:23 (UTC)


 * THanks. Thats a nice-looking pic, and useful too. William M. Connolley 2005-07-03 19:37:04 (UTC).

not PhD
So, I'm curious, I've got to ask (since poking through your pages only yields "I did a doctorate in Numerical Analysis at Oxford", which, incidentally, is followed by a typo, "occaisionally")...D.Phil? Guettarda 4 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)


 * You have discerned the truth that has eluded some others. Don't tell anyone else though. Amusingly (given Oxfords usual reputation for latin pettifoggery) Oxfords version is in english, and everyone elses is in latin. William M. Connolley 2005-07-04 15:19:50 (UTC).


 * I must admit, I already had the info that Oxford awarded D.Phils somewhere in the back of my brain (ex-colonials with undue admiration for things like Oxford)...so all I had to do was figure out that you had an Oxford degree. Guettarda 4 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)

Gravitation acts in accordance with newtons third law.
William M Connolley wrote: One might try to claim that, according to Newton's Third Law all forces come in pairs (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). Therefore, if a force does truly exist, then there must be an identifiable, equal and opposite reaction. In the case of the coriolis "force" there is no such reaction, hence it is NOT a real force! But the same argument applies to gravity.


 * Newton's third law, a law of dynamics, goes: no matter the nature of a force between two objects: (electrostatic force, a rope, a spring): if a force is being exerted between them, then both will be accelerated, while at the same time their common center of mass will continue moving in the same direction and with the same velocity. This is also called the law of conservation of momentum.


 * Particularly in the case of objects floating in space, gravitatonally attracting each other, it can be seen that gravitation acts in accordance with Newton's third law.


 * All forces, all momentum transferring force-fields, have that reciprocity in common: Newtons third law is satisfied. One can consider the option of turning that around and make it a definition: if it satisfies Newton's third law, then it is a force, otherwise it isn't.  --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 5 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)


 * I don't think I wrote what you attribute to me. Where does it come from? William M. Connolley 2005-07-05 20:05:05 (UTC).


 * It comes from:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/Coriolis_effect  --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 5 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)

So it does. Oops. I've removed it. I only copied it and forgot to remove it: it was by 24.13.152.111. William M. Connolley 2005-07-05 21:21:27 (UTC).

Blocked?
Dr. C., did somebody block you from Wikipedia? What's up with that, man? Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 19:40 (UTC)


 * Not that I've noticed. And given that I can write this, presumably not. Why did you think I might be? William M. Connolley 2005-07-06 22:37:45 (UTC).

Generalized theory of gravitation
Thanks for pointing this out to me. It's a mess, which is a shame given how important the early decades of this work was to differential geometry. I'm not an expert, but thanks to miracle year buzz, there was a good review published, History of Unified Field Theory -- by a real scientist in a real journal -- which is understandable by nonspecialists. Or at least, theoreticians outside GR. :)So I've started by summarizing some of the review. I seem to recall either the AIP or APS having some even less technical summaries, which could get worked in. cheers Salsb 7 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)

Nuclear Power and Price-Anderson Act
I've gotten both of these protected and under RfC, and now we're starting Mediation for Price-Andeson (see the link at the bottom of discussion). At this point, it's just me, Benjamin Gatti, and Katefan0 (an admin). Did you want to comment on either of these? Simesa 7 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)

Adminship
Let the games begin at Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley. (Please indicate whether you are willing to accept the nom and answer the three questions). Guettarda 7 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)
 * William: Your only fault :) is that you sometimes forget to sign your posts. Often that is no big deal, but I think you should sign the acceptance of your nomination!  Sunray July 7, 2005 15:23 (UTC)
 * Argh!!! See, I even sign at the end now... William M. Connolley 2005-07-07 15:51:48 (UTC)
 * Wish I had looked at the news before I looked at my mail & my watchlist. Feel rather callous to do this on a day like today.  Guettarda 7 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)

Just to let you know, it is generally considered much better there to not refute every oppose vote. I know that's not easy, but it is better to use the comments section to discuss any innaccuracies in people's vote comments. If you refute every oppose vote, many people think it looks belligerant and that tends to reflect badly on you. So it is better to comment in the comment section and let the votes fall where they may. It looks like you'll do fine. - Taxman Talk July 8, 2005 14:40 (UTC)


 * Fair point, and I've removed my last set of comments to talk. Thanks for the advice. My its getting heated... William M. Connolley 2005-07-08 16:39:19 (UTC).


 * Nah, don't worry. Besides, if you'll notice, some comments like Cortonin's don't even need refuting. They pretty much do it for themselves. - Taxman Talk July 9, 2005 14:06 (UTC)

My vote on your nomination
Thanks for your honesty, and for your comment. Don't worry; I'm not so thin-skinned yet that I'll take offense to people questioning my vote or providing evidence I may have overlooked. I only opposed because I don't like revert wars, I especially dilike 3RR violations. You'll notice I've changed my vote to neutral in light of the evidence I recieved. I did this instead of supporting the nomination because there's too much controversy for me to whole-heartedly support when I haven't been in the same areas of the encyclopedia as you. Hence, my personal ignorance=no support. Sorry for rambling, and all the best. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)
 * I did notice you'd changed to neutral; thats OK; thanks for the message. William M. Connolley 2005-07-07 23:27:44 (UTC).

Thanks for your note. The vote will be closing shortly, so I will wish you good luck. Although I don't believe in it myself. I looked over your contributions closely, closer than I'd want anyone looking at mine. I believe that VfD was not placed in good faith, and saw that it had been removed by others. That article was not a candidate under the guidelines. But taking the nomination off is not what is done. Instead, complete the nomination, it goes to vote, we achieve consensus. With regards to the "altered vote" I understand your reasoning. But changing the text (however asinine) and leaving the vote ignores the fact that it's not the vote it's the discussion that counts. We read their complete text, perhaps think them idiots, then form consensus. I support your reasoning but not your actions. Give the community the facts and trust it to make the its decision. I hope in the event you are elevated you consider what I've said. Everything else is judgment, speculation, and innuendo. Good on you for sticking to your guns, staying strong, and not letting quasi-religion wear you down. Regardless of what happens, if I ever get the gumption to tackle quackery I may call on you for advice. brenneman (t)  (c)  13:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * WMC,

your professional survival
See Talk:William_Connolley, perhaps the climate freeze is thawing? Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 13:49 (UTC)


 * Not based on your RFA vote :-). I forgive you your vote, but I've challenged your reasons, which I don't think are evidence based - though if you produce it, I'll confess. But... thanks for sorting out my professional status! William M. Connolley 2005-07-08 14:14:16 (UTC).

Re: Cortonin
My pleasure. After all the work you've done for our climate-related articles, the least I could do is keep the talk pages clear of poisonous piffle. Let's hope Cortonin's "I'm done for the day" declaration means he doesn't plan to continue his crusade tomorrow. If not, I'll block him as I would any other disruptive user. -- Hadal 9 July 2005 09:38 (UTC)

Mann
WIll see what I can do. Guettarda 00:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks William M. Connolley 21:56:11, 2005-07-10 (UTC).

Bush
I noticed in your RFA that you have climate change expertise. I wonder if you might have any insight to share about the claims in Talk:George_W._Bush. Derex 21:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Will take a look. William M. Connolley 21:56:11, 2005-07-10 (UTC).

Bombs
Thanks. Actually I don't know what it was for, no one does. Someone set off a small bomb downtown, injured 14 people, one woman lost her leg. We had trouble in 1990, some people think it was them, but mostly people don't know. It wasn't a sophisticated bomb, most reports say it was home made, but apparently with a timer (conflicting news reports). Was it a prank or was it set off with an agenda? Not knowing may be worse than knowing. Not being in the country makes things worse. My father walked past that spot apparently in the interval between the bomb being dropped off and it going off, so it's evern more disturbing. Bombs going off in other countries just don't feel the same as ones going off at home. Deplorable as it is, at least it's easy enough to figure out 9-11, or London, or Madrid. This one is all the more disturbing because it's so hard to ascribe motive. If someone set off a bomb along the cross-country pipeline which supplies natural gas to the LNG plant that supplies something like 75% of the US imports of LNG, I could see where they were coming from. But this...shutting down the major business district for a day or two doesn't do much, maiming a few ordinary people doesn't do much. I feel angry, but I have no clue where to focus that anger. It's...confusing, more than anything else. Of course, in the aftermath of that, yesterday there were bomb scares all over the country (Trinis like nothing better than calling in bomb scares to get off work)...and today Tropical Storm Emily is headed for Tobago. Hmm...maybe dodging tornadoes in Oklahoma isn't as bad as I thought it was :) Oh, wait a minute, yes it is - I have Inhofe representing me.  Guettarda 20:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow
Surreal

Ozone depletion
RE: replacement of "completely nonsensical". I am not an expert on ozone depletion, but I believe your view is completely correct. However, I think that the way to illustrate when common arguments are "completely nonsensical", is by quality rebuttal rather than by stating a judgement. I don't object to labeling the arguments "incorrect", as your most recent edit has done, but even that is a little bit POV.

A better option would be to offer that it is common knowledge among atmospheric scientists how the various weight gasses are mixed througout the atmosphere, explain clearly why the arguments are wrong, or offer a referenced citation that brings scientific common knowledge to the general public. You've already offered the citation, now perhaps we should draw a little more knowledge out of the citation onto this article's page.

What is clear common knowledge among scientists is obviously elusive for a significant fraction of the general public, otherwise the "oversimplified logic" arguments wouldn't come up so frequently. Therefore, putting a little reasoning why they are incorrect into the article serves to illustrate "completely nonsensical" without ever having to include that in the article. Un focused 13:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You're probably right. Oh all right, you're *definitely* right. In fact, we all know - if we pause to think - that the atmosphere is not segregated by weight, because will all know that there *isn't* a thin layer of heavy trace gases at the bottom, followed by 21% O2 followed by 79% of the height as N2 followed by traces of light gases at the top. We all know full well that O2/N2 mix completely... if we stop to think. So, this isn't abstruse scientific knowledge. But you are quite right to say that it isn't obvious to everyone, else the argument would never be presented... Oh, and there are actual measuremens of the CFC mixing ratios demonstrating that they are up there too... I'll see if I can find that. William M. Connolley 16:15:40, 2005-07-14 (UTC).

Hobbes on Truth
How to square statements such as are in Part IV concerning the ignorance of the schoolmen with his unforgiving nominalism is difficult, but when he discusses truth thematically, it appears that its source is the sovereign. I'll largely be repeating what I've said earlier here, but now I have the citations.

Ch. 4 states that "true and false are attributes of speech, not of things. And where speech is not, there is neither truth nor falsehood. Error there may be, as when we expect that which shall not be, or suspect what has not been; but in neither case can a man be charged with untruth." Men are the authors of words, however, and in Ch. 11 Hobbes reveals that men give different names to the same thing due to their having different passions. Yet as one man's passions are not superior to another's, it seems that we have here a radical nominalism which makes the truth of any statement entirely subjective. When discussing the results of this, Hobbes says that the opinions of those with whom we disagree we call "heresy," strongly suggesting that what he refers to here is the truth of religious statements. We find the same in his thematic treatment of religion, which topic leads incidentally to a discussion of the state of war.

This becomes explicit in Ch. 18. The sovereign is to determine which doctrines are conducive to peace (sixth point). Yet this is not a matter of merely setting public dogma, which must be believed even if not true, for "doctrine repugnant to peace can no more be true, than peace and concord can be against the law of nature": nothing can be true which is contrary to what peace demands. With this one sentence, Hobbes sets truth on a par with justice and injustice, as the creation of the sovereign. This is possible because of the nominalism he introduces in Part I. I think his statements regarding the "truth" of this or that religious opinion must be read in this light.

Regards, RJC Talk 16:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your interpretation. In your last quote, "true" is an absolute, which "doctrine repugnant to peace" is being measured against. The sovereign doesn't get to decide what is absolutely true, merely what doctrines may be asserted, which is a quite different matter. William M. Connolley 16:15:40, 2005-07-14 (UTC).

RFA
Sad to say, 70% isn't consensus. But there's a lot of good in there - you got an awful lot of support votes, and a lot of the oppose votes were linked ot the ArbComm issue... I'd say things look good once you can get that hurdle cleared up. Congrats on all the support anyway - 69 "support" votes in an awful lot. Guettarda 16:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'd echo that, and as I just said at the top of the nomination page, if you take the valid criticism into account and work on that I'm quite confident you'll be a shoe in next time. It just looks like this one was a little early considering the arbcom decision. Anyway, keep up the good work, and keep an eye on what you can do to improve, I'll try the same, and we'll all be happy :) - Taxman Talk 17:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to say what Guettarda said, even though I voted to oppose. My opinion is largely irrelevant here, but, if you decide to ask Ed to go against community consensus and precedent, you'll be letting yourself in for even more hassle than you've already had (and you've had more than anyone should have to have!). But that's just my 2cents/pence worth. My (somewhat vocal) dissatisfaction with the closure of your RfA reflects on my feelings about the process, not about you. (And just as I was typing this, I ran into an edit conflict The Uninvited, below.) -Splash 18:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, doc, how would you feel if I just went ahead and gave you sysop rights? It would be a judgment call on my responsibility, but shouldn't really be such a big deal, right?. Everyone knows you would do what you said you would do. Uncle Ed 18:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * sorry, i found the handful of votes against you simply because of your expertise absolutely maddening. that makes this whole exercise a self-parody. Derex 18:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm back, having missed the excitement. Fortunately I don't have to worry about how I would have answered Ed's question... William M. Connolley 19:49:23, 2005-07-14 (UTC).


 * Interesting to say the least of it. I missed most of the fun too - I had to leave to teach just as things were getting interesting.  I didn't even look at the mailing list until a few minutes ago.  More fun there.  It made me realise all the more I don't like the way adminship is decided - it is a big deal, despite Jimbo's intent for it.  But how do you change to cultural trend in an organisation as big as Wikipedia?  Guettarda 20:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Better luck next time. It is nice to see however that it was a fairly serious discussion, and not overrun with puppets from the likes of Aetherometry. Dragons flight 22:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

RFA Outcome
I have closed your RFA nomination as unsuccessful. Though this will come as a disappointment to you, I hope that you will continue your good work here at Wikipedia. The adminship process is a difficult one and one of the most unfortunate things about it is that by its nature it is frustrating for nominees, even those who succeed. I would change it if I knew how.

Very kindest regards,

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, and thanks for your politeness. William M. Connolley 19:47:08, 2005-07-14 (UTC).
 * Congrats on your RFA, personally I think you are an excellent contributer to wikipedia. Klonimus 07:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * (No really, I will be on wikiholiday in less than 12 hours). Let me know when you come up again.  I'll vote support (again).  Wikibofh 02:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the RFA outcome. I don't know if I'm going to keep my WP600 list updated, or if anyone will ever look at it, but I thought I'd let you know I've left the '*' by your name on the assumption you're still interested.  If not, please feel free to remove it.  -- Rick Block (talk) 18:09, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks; we'll see in a while. I think you should keep your page going, if its not too much effort. William M. Connolley 18:20:04, 2005-07-16 (UTC).

ECOLOGICS "Delete"
I would think before you cite a submission as "dubious" and for "deletion" you would at least offer your own credentials or expertise in this field to make a criticism. I would expect some HELP in making the submission workable since I'm new to the wikipedia community rather than just "dissing" something due to your own obivious predjudices or biases relative to something labeled "Black Ecology." This submission IS NOT promoting myself, original research, or something like that -- just trying to document some important historical issues relevant to the environmental movement and how the term ECOLOGICS was developed and used -- is that really "dubious?" User:222.96.232.116


 * You may have very good intentions, which we appreciate, but references should be cited at all cost. As a user-based community, credentials are one thing, and expertise recognised, but they do not decide consensus, although they may be a nice thing to have. External references should be cited, and if there aren't any, it makes it original research. Submit it to a scientific journal first, and then it will qualify for an entry...it's all about verifiability. Some other wiki projects accept original research (like Wikinews, in a news based context), and perhaps in other contexts in the future, but this is Wikipedia - an encylopedia for referenced observations, phenomena, etc. and hence not a publishing journal, no matter how convincing or important the entry is it has to be externally referenced. -- Natalinasmpf 07:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Sock Puppet??
No, I am not a sock puppet of John Lott's. I posted a reply to my talk page, but figured I should put something here to, just to make sure you see it. :-) Al Lowe 00:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Glaciations (and the bits in between)
Hi William, I noticed your edits to Eemian interglacial and what with you being familiar with the whole climate thing, I was hoping you could answer a question that's been troubling me for a while about glaciation names around the world. Namely, can all the articles on the different glaciations and interglacials be merged or are there differences in dates or climate conditions that would indicate they should be covered separately? If they are all the same, is there any international standard for the titles of the periods? I did think that the different names were just down to local geologists coming up with their own schemes but now I'm not so sure. Can you help? Thanks. adamsan 20:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that the problem is due to local geologists naming periods after local features; and it only later becoming clear that these were the same time period (for a long time dating, other than relative, was very difficult). DF probably has a better idea; I shall direct her attention to this question. I'm not a geologist myself so I'm not a good person to do it, but a concordance of the different names would be good. William M. Connolley 21:53:21, 2005-07-19 (UTC).


 * That would be great, things are a bit of a mess at the moment with some articles semi-merged, some redirecting to one local scheme and others to a different local scheme whilst some remain as red links. I look forward to reading DF's response. Cheers. adamsan 22:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll tell you what I can right now, but I can't give you a complete answer and my life is too hectic to research the question in the immediate future. You are both almost certainly right that the problem is one of different local standards, often established before techniques existed for correlating glaciations across different sites.  In some cases, this may also lead to slight differences in meaning since geologists at one site may not have defined the start or end of an ice age as occurring at quite the same horizon as those at another site.  However, for the most part the similarities greatly outway the differences.  As far as I know, there is no standard nomenclature (though this may just be my ignorance).  I am sure however that someone would have published lists of naming crosscorrelations, though I'm not sure where to look for that.  Frankly the first place I would have looked if I needed this information is our own timeline of glaciation, though I don't have enough knowledge of this field to confirm that it is either accurate or complete.  However, to be honest, I doubt even specialists pay much attention to nomenclature beyond the penultimate glacial.  It is generally much more common to speak in terms of marine isotopic stages (a red link definitely in need of writing).  The marine record accurately captures the advance and retreat of glaciers even when little evidence is preserved on land.  I know there is a standard stage numbering, but it is in fact so standard that I have no idea what is the proper reference for it.  Maybe I can find that with a little looking.  Dragons flight 07:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of glaciation had an apparently identical table to ice age in it; I've rm'd it from ice age and linked between. I agree viz the MIS names - somewhere these need to be related, sometime. I've added some MIS #'s and started a stub MIS page. William M. Connolley 22:04:38, 2005-07-22 (UTC).

Yet Another London Wikimeet
Heya,

We're organising another London meetup, for Sunday the 11th of September; specifics still to work out, but it will probably be fun as ever, and involve a few drinks and a nice chat in a pub. We'd love to see you there...

James F. (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite. If possible, I will come, but I make no guarantees at this early stage... William M. Connolley 22:12:48, 2005-07-19 (UTC).

Ecologics
I nominated Ecologics for deletion. Since the nomination, the article author has contacted me and asked for assistance with the article. I was initially dubious that the article was legitimate, however I have been convinced that it is being edited in good faith, albeit by a new and inexperienced editor. I have retracted my delete vote, and I would appreciate it if you would consider visiting the article and the deletion discussion, and reconsidering your deletion vote. Best regards, EvilPhoenix talk 03:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the message. OK, I've reviewed it, and I'm still on D at the moment but would be prepared to change. I'm still pretty dubious about the article, and I must admit that I'm influenced by the personal attacks from the author. I'll take another look. William M. Connolley 08:54:53, 2005-07-20 (UTC).

See post at my "talk" I have substantially revised the submission on ecologics (still working on it). I think the confusion is coming from using two terms that are both tied to Roger Davis, but have distinct meanings. Ecologics is not black ecology. The solution is to do two articles-- one for each word/term. I think we continue to have a disagreement about "attack" but, I cannot honestly apologize for an offense I didn't commit. The editor you claimed I attacked "personally" can't have it two ways -- using his academic "credentials" to serve as a basis for making offensive statements in reviewing a submission and then crying foul when he is merely asked to verify those credentials. Yes, I might have bit strong in my retort, but given his comments (about my integrity/honesty) I can make no excuse. It just does not seem fair -- if he doesn't want to disclose his personal information for privacy reasons that is okay, but than don't use them to justify belittling others. If Wikipedia is just for "academic scholars" than the website should not indicate ALL ARE WELCOME TO CONTRIBUTE. The elitism of the ivy towers of academia should not apply to wikipedia in my opinion. I HOPE YOU RECONSIDER YOUR OPINION OF ME, I AM NOT A BAD PERSON, AND NEVER WOULD ATTACK SOMEONE intentionally or maliciously, i only tired to respond to what i considered belligerance and insensitive remarks.--Adisaji 01:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

New s(k)eptics cat
Just a note in case you hadn't seen this. Our new resident skeptic has started a climate s(k)eptic cat and has been linking various people to it. Some appear a bit questionable? Guess he's building a support list :-). Cheers - Vsmith 15:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're correct - User:Ondrejk/Global warming skeptics. Guettarda 15:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it is disturbing or entertaining to see someone try to wikify the list of OISM petition signers. (Aagaard and below on Ondrejk's page)  Dragons flight 15:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... well its kind of him to list his efforts for those who want to keep track of him. I removed Trenberth from his skeptics list. Should Jane Orient go on VFD? He seems to have created her page for no other reason than the petition. And/or Arthur B. Robinson. William M. Connolley 16:24:31, 2005-07-20 (UTC).

Bellamy
Re your note on my talk page: The reference at the bottom of the David Bellamy page says he retracted his views. I found this while going through the history of the listed global warming skeptics, who are almost entirely funded by the fossil fuels industry. Was thinking of adding somthing on that Tedneeman | Talk 04:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for that. Reading the links, there is a withdrawl of the glacial claims (though this is not clearly sourced to him) but no withdrawl of any of the GW claims. He has decided to withdraw from the debate, he sez, but thats not a retraction of his views. I've edited the DB page; will mod the GWS page slightly.