User talk:William M. Connolley

File:800px-non-Admin JollyRoger.GIF The flag of the former admin: no quarter asked or given

To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with decency and humility, is to honour him; as signs of fear to offend. To speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly, impudently is to dishonour. Leviathan, X. User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats Googlebombing: Coton school UK CISK Adrian Edmund Gill Brian Gerard Gardiner Joanna Haigh Stratospheric Processes and their Role in Climate Carl Mears Frank Wentz Microwave sounding unit User:William M. Connolley/Climate change feedbacks Proverb: if you have nothing new to say, don't say it. Thought for the day: paulgraham.com/discover There's no light the foolish can see better by [1] I "archive" (i.e. delete old stuff) quite aggressively (it makes up for my untidiness in real life). If you need to pull something back from the history, please do. Once. My Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions • Block log • Count watchers • Edit count • WikiBlame I'm Number 11

The Holding Pen

Ocean acidification

On hold

A reader writes: "Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments.[31] This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with moderate (and potentially beneficial) implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean.[32]" I'm not sure, but it sounds odd. You can beat me to it if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Hmm, looks like it was User:Plumbago [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Correctly deduced. It was me. It may not be worded well, but I think that it's factually correct. Basically, as well as its other effects on living organisms in the ocean, acidification is also expected (see the references) to dissolve existing carbonate sediments in the oceans. This will increase the ocean's alkalinity inventory, which in turn increases its buffering capacity for CO2 - that is, the ocean can then store more CO2 at equilibrium than before (i.e. the "implications for climate change" alluded to). As a sidenote, it also means that palaeo scientists interested in inferring the past from carbonate sediment records will have to work fast (well, centuries) before their subject matter dissolves away! Hope this helps. --PLUMBAGO 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your ArbCom userpage comment

Need to finish this off
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know that you were disappointed by the conduct and results of the case, and I'm sure you're aware that I voted against most of the remedies proposed against you and share some portion of your feelings. However, I respectfully suggest that calling one of my colleagues a "fool" on-wiki is not helpful. We all accept a great deal of criticism and commentary as par for the course in connection with serving as arbitrators—just as you have as one of our active administrators on contentious topics—but I always still think it's better, and more effective, to stay away from the overtly ad hominem. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Ah, you've found it :-). And while you are here, thank you for your votes. I am indeed deeply disappointed by the conduct of your colleagues; and I regret having to disappoint you now. Arbcomm are big boys and girls and can cope with some discrete criticism of their actions. Moreover, you (arbcomm, I can't recall how you personally voted) established the principle that users are entitled to insult a blocking admin as much as they please on their own talk pages; I'm sure you'll extend a similar privilidge to those who desysop people William M. Connolley (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I should add that there is a diff there justifying the appelation. I regard the extensive comment re the cabal as being grotesquely stupid. However this carries no implication that is the most foolish thing that particular arb has done in this case William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Nobody is entitled to insult anyone here William. If arbcom has passed some sort of rule the "entitles" users to insult a blocking admin(and I seriously doubt they have) then I would use good sense and ignore such an "entitlement" as unproductive. Chillum 14:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Really? Are you certain of your ground here? Suppose someone were to call the arbcomm "liars" or "lying bastards" or "ridiculous" or "devious" or compare them to a third world Junta? Do you think that would be actionable? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I think it would be rather poor judgment. Just because something is not actionable does not make it an entitlement. Chillum 17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC) If you mean the arbcomm's decision permitting this, I entirely agree with you. However, until they are wise enough to revoke it (and alas I fear we will have rather a long time to wait for wisdom from them) we are stuck with it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I haven't looked to see which arb was accused of being a "fool," but am curious how would "Stephen Bain should not be entrusted with anything more valuable than a ball of string" would be received. I'd like to know before I say that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Ditto
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is available in full at the link above. As a result of this case: The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles substantially about cold fusion, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of three months from Wikipedia, and for a period of one year from the cold fusion article. These bans are to run concurrently. Additionally, Abd is prohibited from participating in discussions about disputes in which he is not one of the originating parties, including but not limited to article talk pages, user talk pages, administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution, however not including votes or comments at polls. Abd is also admonished for edit-warring on Arbitration case pages, engaging in personal attacks, and failing to support allegations of misconduct. William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrator rights are revoked. He may apply for their reinstatement at any time via Requests for Adminship or appeal to the Committee. William M. Connolley is also admonished for edit warring on Arbitration case pages. Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded not to edit war and to avoid personal attacks. The community is urged to engage in a policy discussion and clarify under what circumstances, if any, an administrator may issue topic or page bans without seeking consensus for them, and how such bans may be appealed. This discussion should come to a consensus within one month of this notice. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I'm am sorry to see that your adminship has been revoked. I believe that our circumstances are similar in a way. I too was once an admin and lost my tools mainly due to conflicts on articles related to the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. I know that the vast majority of my content creation and all my FA's were done after I was desysopped...with that said I am hoping that we can still look forward to your wisdom and guidance in those areas you have so instrumental in and that you will continue to help us build as reliable a reference base as we can achieve. Best wishes to you!--MONGO 03:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Not a great day for Arbcom or the project. However I doubt you will take it too personally. --BozMo talk 08:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks to you both William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I ask that you please accept my nomination to regain your administrative rights at RFA. 99.191.73.2 (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Vair tempting. I fear that was the wrong forum. I shall ponder this matter William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry to hear this, William. You were a good admin. I hope you won't let it bother you. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I rarely comment in RFA, nor do I monitor them. If you ever decide to be re-nominated, I would appreciate a courtesy notice as otherwise I will almost certainly not be aware of the discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Interesting [3] Hardly surprising that arbcom wants to keep their mess as far from view as possible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) Weird. Who is it supposed to be a courtesy too? I've asked C User_talk:Carcharoth#CB. Certainly it seems to me that the people most embarassed by that page would be arbcomm William M. Connolley (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Woonpton expressed a desire for blanking, both during the case and at WT:AC/N. As I understand it, she feels that having Abd's allegations about cabal-ism visible were and are slandering her and everyone else smeared by the accusations. EdChem (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC) You might also want to look at User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke#Thanks_and_question for more on Woonpton's view, as well as the thread immediately above it. EdChem (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC) This giant spwaling ill-managed case now extends to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Courtesy_blanking_of_case_pages. Sigh - I thought they had finally managed to finish this case, but not, they drag its stinking corpse out of the grave and prop it up again William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Not sure which section is best to post this, but I would be delighted to renominate you at RFA or support you if you decide to run. Stifle (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fools and their foolishness

Yes, it needs finishing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Regarding [4], you are quite welcome to raise any of your concerns or points on my talk page. I'm quite open to constructive feedback, even if it's harsh or drastically opposed to my views or actions. I even promise not to seek a block if you call me a fool. However, if you call me Mungojerrie or make me listen to "Memory", it's war! :-) (If you prefer to keep everything together, we could easily have the same discussion at User talk:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff.) Vassyana (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I'll decline your permission to call you a fool on your page, though, since I think that would be wrong. The "Misc" page needs some more work when I hve a spare moment William M. Connolley (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I am mostly interested in what you find most troublesome about my statement and what harm you think it would bring if taken to heart. It is entirely possible that there is a misunderstanding or that I simply communicated ineffectively. Even if it is the simple fact that our opinions are on opposite poles, it would be valuable for me to better understand your concerns. I'll keep an eye on the subpage and remain available for discussion. Vassyana (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I thought some of your decisions were described as foolishness. This is not in my view the same as calling you a fool. Everyone makes foolish decisions and sometimes takes foolish actions. Criticising an action as foolish IMHO is not a personal attack whereas calling the actor a fool is. As for the troublesome statement the problem I have with it is "Fernseeds and elephants" (roughly that you are staring out of the window discerning a fern seed in the distance when there is an elephant in the room, to paraphrase CS Lewis) you say "there is certainly a kernel of truth to the concerns in that there is a certain indentifiable group that appears to act in a mutually supporting fashion" completely misses the bigger problem which drives people with nothing more in common than a basic understanding of science to "appear to act in concert". On most ordinary differentiators (religion, politics, hair length, social class?) I am opposites to WMC (we do both have kids I think) but he has a scientific training of sorts and D Phil in maths from the one of the better universities in the UK and a background in scientific modelling, and I have good scientific training, a PhD from the better place and a background in scientific modelling and that means when faced with utter rubbish (someone who thinks that Global Warming violates the second law of thermodynamics) we tend to agree. So perhaps it is a concern to you that there is an appearance of a Cabal but there is also a concern in the appearance of idiocy on some of the groups who attack. You say "commonly overwhelmed by involved opinion and regularly featured involved editors !voting and/or commenting as though they were uninvolved users providing an opinion" but when I look I see five or six identifiable anti WMC anti science editors who never miss an opportunity to express a view and perhaps fifty scientifically trained editors who each take a turn for a few months patiently explaining to these people and then move back to the middle of the penguin huddle. A lot of the antogonists I am sure are 14 year olds who don't understand the limits of their knowledge. Some are confident readers of trashy news papers or have strong political motivation. The idea though that this is an issue about the editors who protect WP as is as silly as saying that wikiproject medicine is a "troubling conspiracy" of wikipedians who are medically qualified trying to keep wikipedia in line with established medical practice. --BozMo talk 19:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Based on your response, I'm going to venture that a failure on my part to communicate more clearly is a principal culprit. Let me try restating my point: There's no evil Cabal. There is a group of like-minded editors that support each other. This is usually beneficial to Wikipedia. The main harmful activity I see is involved* editors overwhelming content and conduct discussions on noticeboards, especially when involved* editors present their opinions as though they were uninvolved parties and/or generate the false appearance of outside consensus. (*"Involved" defined simply as actually previously or currently involved in content disputes within the topic area that are directly relevant to the discussion or substantial conflict with the main involved parties.) A complete rejection of all concerns about "clique editing" is inappropriate in the face of this very real problem. I will certainly agree that this is at least as much of a problem with pseudoscience/fringe editors as with skeptical/scientific editors. Indeed, I say it is more of a problem with the former than the latter, if for no other reason than fringe editors' preferred versions are usually inaccurate presentations with far worse NPOV violations and gaming the content noticeboards allows them set policy precedents grossly at odds with the principles invoked. I hope this better clarifies what I was trying to express (obviously with limited success and much misunderstanding). If I can further clarify, or if you or anyone else wishes to discuss it further, I remain available to do so. Vassyana (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks Bozmo. I've cut my hair recently so we may not be too far opposed on that aspect (unless you now have long hair). As to expanding the page - that will come in time. I'm glad you (V) are watching but I'm afraid I've grown rather discouraged by arbcomms ability to learn, so I won't be in a hurry. That page is mostly for me, though you are free to ask questions there if you like and I'll probbaly answer. In the meantime, on the "fools" issue, User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/On_civility#Misc_arbcomm-y_stuff refers William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Everyone does at least two foolish things a day, but only some of us can do six impossible things before breakfast. Verbal chat 20:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Second BozMo. A clear description of the situation. My hair is short, my Dr. rer. nat. is from one of the better German universities, and I represent the "no kids" demography. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Current

I just found this

Oh look: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/web-iquette-for-climate-discussions/ Isn't that good? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

He used web-iquette for medical discussions as a guide. That reminds me of How Doctors Think which is a great work on how brilliant, well trained, experienced people can get things wrong every day. I wonder if there is a way to do the same thing. Ignignot (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wondring aloud

I have to wonder if there isn't some deliberate foot dragging, given sentiments previously expressed by Arbcom and other insiders. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Um. I missed the Raul stuff in August and now feel guilty about not expressing my sympathy (literally in this case :-(). Old score settling I suspect William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What Raul stuff in Aug? Email if you prefer. --BozMo talk 07:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing secret, just not common knowledge. It is off on some arbcomm-y type page; Raul dropping CU tools; I'd find the link except someone watching can probably find it quicker William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Raul654 -Atmoz (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thermal underwear

Idealized greenhouse model, or the section below

Thermal trousers with special emission properties May I ask a question? I stress that I am not trying to do any original research, but only want to improve the GW article by explaining what is fundamental to the AGW hypothesis. I don't think the current article really explains it very well. My question: I did some Googling and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (or rather a derivative of it) seems to be fundamental. But there are two versions of it, as follows: S0/4*(1-alpha) = e*sigmaT^4 S0/4*(1-alpha)+G = sigmaT^4 where alpha is albedo, S0 is a constant solar radiative flux (units W/m^2), T is temp in K, and sigma is a constant. The two sides of the equation both have units W/m^2. In the first equation e is 'emissivity' which is unitless and is the ratio of energy radiated by a particular material to energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. I think of it as an 'underpants factor'. You have a black body throbbing with radiation, which will cool unless you keep it warm. So you put some underpants on it, to keep the cold out, i.e. stop it radiating so much. Hence CO2 and water vapour are like thermal underwear to keep the earth warm (if e is 100%, the temperature is about -18 deg C, for if you solve for e with current temperature, assume 15 deg C, you find e is about 60%). I am assuming e is constant whatever the temperature for exactly the same material, is that correct? In reality e will change as the material of the atmosphere changes (more CO2, or more vapour). In the second equation G is a number, units also W/m^2, which is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system. If you solve for G for 15 deg C, you get about 150 W/m^2. My puzzle is whether G is also constant, if for other reasons (e.g. change in solar radiation, change in albedo) the temperature changes. Intuitively it won't be constant. Why represent it this way? Apologise if I have misunderstood, and please correct any mistakes (I am quite new to this, but it is interesting). Again, I am not trying to do any research, just finding out some facts that could be put into layman's language and hopefully into the article. I think thermal underwear is a better analogy than greenhouses, e.g. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I really don't think all this talk of underwear and throbbing bodies is appropriate. Please keep such impulses to yourself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC) You are the Walrus and you talk about throbbing bodies? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC) My personal preference is for exploding underpants, but they banned them :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Actually it was Long Johns I was looking for but couldn't find the category until now. Anyway I prefer the leather ones. Seriously, can anyone answer my question above ? HistorianofScience (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I think you're looking for the one-sentence summary of the greenhouse effect, which is the earth is warmer with an atmosphere, because it receives heat from both the sun and the atmosphere. Your G, above, is the heat from the atmosphere. Put that way, it becomes obvious that G is not contstant, in time (long or short term) or space William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation but I'm still not sure I understand. Suppose we turned off the sun like an electric light. Then the earth no longer receives heat from the sun. Does it still receive heat from the atmosphere? Until the atmosphere cools down, yes. Then no William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Surely not. Isn't the correct explanation that the atmosphere is acting like a blanket around the earth, preventing it from cooling as fast as a black body would? No. You need to read what I wrote and understand it. Until you do, you will get nowhere William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC) So it's not heating the earth, it's preventing it from cooling as fast as it would in the black body case. No William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC) And the heat energy it is losing should be identical, at the instant the sun turns off, to what it was receiving from the sun. If that is correct, G is the difference between the W/m^2 that the black body would emit, and the W/m^2 actually emitted. No? HistorianofScience (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC) As a very very broad-brush approximation, the atmosphere receives no heat directly from the sun, since it is transparent to SW. The atmosphere is heated by LW from the earth (which itself, of course, is ultimately sourced from SW from the sun absorbed at the earth's sfc. Can you cope with maths? If you can, this is easily written down - indeed it is somewhere, I only need to point you at it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I can cope with maths. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Would it be more like those rude transparent underpants then? [5] HistorianofScience (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Fine. Writing it all out is quicker than finding it, so... simplifying, the sun shines 4S units on the uniform earth (and since the area of a circle is 1/4 the area of a corresponding sphere the 4 drops out), which is a black body (forget albedo for the moment, it makes no real difference). The atmosphere is transparent to SW, and can be considered as a single layer not in conductive contact with the surface. There is no diurnal cycle, all is averaged out, all is in equilibrium. So at the sfc (with atmosphere) we have the following equation: S + G = rT^4 (the surface is black, captures all solar SW and transforms it into LW which it re-radiates) and G is the radiation from the atmosphere. Meanwhile, in the atmosphere, 2G = rT^4 (the atmospheric layer is totally opaque to the surface LW, is itself isothermal, and being a layer radiates both up and downwards). As it happens G = r(T_a)^4 but we don't care about that for tihs analysis. Hence, S + G = 2G, hence S = G, hence T_1 = (2S/r)^0.25. Meanwhile, in the absence of the atmosphere, we clearly would have T_2 = (S/r)^0.25. T_1 > T_2 (by a factor of 2^0.25) and (T_1 - T_2) is the greenhouse effect. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Also, this [6] and the linked [7] also refers, but is harder William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks (appreciated). How do you get from S + G = rT^4 to 2G = rT^4 without the assumption that S=G (which you later derive). The intervening bracketed "the atmospheric layer is totally opaque to the surface LW, is itself isothermal, and being a layer radiates both up and downwards). " seems like an explanation, but I didn't understand it. The atmospheric layer absorbs all the surface LW, which is the rT^4. It is in equilibrium. It radiates , equally, upwards and downwards, G. So it gains rT^4 and loses 2G, so those two are equal William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC) If the earth receives all the SW, then reflects it back to the layer, why do you say earlier that the layer heats the earth? Why isn't it the other way round. No, it doesn't reflect the SW - it is assumed black. It absorbs all the SW and re-radiates it as LW. Yes, "the earth heats the atmosphere" can also be regarded as true William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time. HistorianofScience (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Blast from the past

Not to creep you out, but I was looking through old RfAs and I found this, from your second, and succesful, RfA. To the question of: How do you see Wikipedia in 2010 ?

OK, for what its worth, here is the rest: I see wikipedia continuing its growth and influence. The problems of scaling will continue: how to smoothly adapt current practices to a larger community. At the moment this appears to be working mostly OK. Problems exist with the gap between arbcomm level and admin level: I expect this to have to be bridged/changed someway well before 2010. I very much hope more experts - from my area of interests, particularly scientists - will contribute: at the moment all too few do. To make this work, we will have to find some way to welcome and encourage them and their contributions without damaging the wiki ethos. This isn't working terribly well at the moment. I predict that wiki will still be a benevolent dictatorship in 2010 - the problems of transition to full user sovereignty are not worth solving at this stage. William M. Connolley 20:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Thought you'd be amused. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm yes. "Prediction is hard, especially of the future" as they say William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha. So they say. I'm really good at the past prediction part though. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

More thermals

All at Idealized greenhouse model it seems

Thanks for your explanation which I am afraid I still don't really follow. I don't see how 'the earth heats the atmosphere' and 'the atmosphere heats the earth' can both be true. If it is true that none of the SW affects the atmosphere and that the earth reflects LW as a result, then the earth is the cause of the warming. Indeed couldn't we ignore the sun entirely, turn it off and install a large amount of patio heaters all round the earth pointing upwards at the sky: this would have the same effect. I didn't understand the both directions stuff "It [the atmosphere] radiates , equally, upwards and downwards". Maybe it does, but, unless there is a net outflow of LW heat energy from the earth to balance the SW coming in, the temperature of the earth will not be at equilibrium. A net flow can only be in one direction, by definition. The net outflow from the earth must be exactly balanced by the outflow at the edge of the atmosphere, otherwise the atmosphere would continue heat up. The atmosphere is hotter than the earth's surface because the outflow from the atmosphere has to occur at a higher temperature than the same outflow from the earth. So, the earth is the 'efficient cause' of the heating of the atmosphere, surely. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC) You've dropped down into words (some of which are wrong: as I've said before, Earth doesn't reflect LW. It is black in LW). It is clearer if you use maths. Or pix, perhaps. Lets try: | G ^ V Solar input. (4S ->) S | ---------------------------- Atmosphere. Emits G, up and down, thermal radiation. Absorbs S+G. ---------------------------- | | | V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S G V ^ S+G | ----------------------------- Sfc. Abs S(SW)+G(LW). Thus emits (S+G)(LW). Thus S+G = rT^4 Clear now? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, apart from the bit about not reflecting LW (that seemed picky, unless I misunderstood it), which of my claims was wrong? I said that the net outflow from earth to atmosphere has to be upwards. And that this outflow has to be exactly equal to the outflow from the atmosphere into space. Your diagram is incomprehensible. And what about Greenhouse effect where it says "Radiation is emitted both upward, with part escaping to space, and downward toward Earth's surface, making our life on earth possible." This is entirely wrong isn't it? It gives the impression that we are safe because only part of the radiation escapes to space, but the rest is trapped behind & keeps us snug and warm. The reality is that the net outflow from the earth has to be exactly balanced by the outflow at the edge of the atmosphere into space. Otherwise the atmosphere would keep on heating up until equilibrium was restored. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC) [edit] The unclearness of the diagram is the omission of the causality. You have the atmosphere radiating G downwards, e.g. Yes but where does the G come from? If we were to start with turning on the sun like a switch, at that instant there would be no G from the atmosphere. In which case the first thing to hit the earth would be S. Then earth would emit (not reflect) S. With no G. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Like I say, you need the maths and the pix, not the words. The diagram is a steady state. We can re-draw it, if you like, for an Earth at 0K above which the sun has just been turned on: | 0 ^ V Solar input. (4S ->) S | ---------------------------- Atmosphere. At 0K. Doesn't radiate. ---------------------------- | | | V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S 0 V ^ 0 | ----------------------------- Sfc. Abs S(SW)+0(LW). At 0K. Doesn't radiate. So now in this pix you see that the atmos is still in equilibrium, at 0K, but the Earth isn't: It is absorbing S but radiating nothing. So it will warm up, yes? So after a bit we get something like this: | 0 ^ V Solar input. (4S ->) S | ---------------------------- Atmosphere. At 0K. Doesn't radiate. ---------------------------- | | | V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S 0 V ^ G_T | ----------------------------- Sfc. Abs S(SW)+0(LW). Has warmed up somewhat, to T. Emits rT^4, call this G_T. So now the sfc has warmed up somewhat, so it is emitting G_T in the LW. Now the atmosphere isn't in balance: it is absorbing G_T but emitting nothing, since it is at 0K. So it will warm up. So it will start emitting downwards an warm further. And eventually we end up with the equilibrium solution William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Service award update

Hello, William M. Connolley! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system. Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Argh, I hate it when these things change :-( Oh well, I'll see if the new one looks any prettier than the old :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Some help with links would be appreciated

I see that you're (still) neck deep in "The Dramaz!", but when you get a chance I'd appreciate it if yourself or someone you know could take a look at Eric Rignot and try to straighten out the climatology related redlinks there. Don't worry about the link to Lew Allen Director's Award, I'll take care of that myself eventually (unless someone else wants to write a little article about the award. Don't let me stop you!). Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. By golly, but that is an awful photo! William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Done a bit, others have too. You might want to pay attention to the regrettable possibility of it being a copyvio, mind William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist, I appreciate it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

On refactoring and a higher standard of civility

Following Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#William M. Connolley refactoring and interjecting his comments in those of others and engaging in antagonistic attacks on fellow editors:

User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done; he is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms, and to promptly refactor any unintentional typos.

The area of probation is to be interpreted to include anywhere that a topic related to or a dispute stemming from climate change is being discussed, including but not limited to articletalk, usertalk, and WP and WT namespaces. Editing others' posts explicitly includes adding {{cot}}, {{discussion top}}, and similar templates used to close discussions; an exception is made for archiving discussions which have received no posts for at least one week. Your right to point out cases where refactoring should occur is in no wise restricted. Please be careful when throwing around terms that might be interpreted to refer to your fellow volunteers - even if a subtle dig falls within the letter of WP:Civility, it can still sting and contribute to the level of dysfunction at those pages. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is silly and a victory for the yahoo's; unfortunately you've succumbed to the mob. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Following discussion with the other admins who commented on the original discussion, the above restriction has been clarified: removing whole comments from this page is fine. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Code fragments found

Just thouht you might be interested in this news item about code fragments being found. It came to my attention as it was next to this story which has a pretty decent subheading. I don't have access to more than the abstract, doubtless this will lead to interesting discussions. Perhaps a bit offtopic at the moment, but something to look forward to. . . dave souza, talk 17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: the water vapor, email me and you will get a PDF. (Re: Roman law - very cool.) Awickert (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere - odd, the version I heard was stratospheric *drying*. Yes, pdf please William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

From my limited understanding, the point is increase = warmer climate, subsequent drying = recent lack of warming predicted by some models, outcome possible solution to puzzle and improved modelling. All very interesting. . . dave souza, talk 19:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies to all: my subscription doesn't work until it appears in print (e.g., until it stops being a "Science Express" article). Shoot. Sorry. You'll all get it once I can access it. I will send emails to friends at other institutions and see if they can get it though. Awickert (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have this page watchlisted anymore. I am willing to provide copies for papers behind paywalls within reason. -Atmoz (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC

Outcome of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC:

• William M. Connolley is restricted until 2010-05-03 from making more than one revert to any article in the probation area in any 24 hour period.
• William M. Connolley is required until 2010-08-03 to initiate or participate in discussion at the relevant talkpage any time he makes a revert to any article in the probation area, excepting to revert blatant, obvious vandalism.

- 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 48 hours

I [pap redacted - WMC] have enacted a 48 hour block on your account [pap redacted - WMC] LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your lack of interest in the actual content of the wiki is duly noted; as I said above: you've chosen the worthless, the yahoos, the septics and the fools above those who actually have a clue William M. Connolley (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've removed the goo and dribble from the above, leaving only the substance William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple:Wikipedia

I want to make sure that you are aware of this edit to Black Body. I had never heard of Simple:Wikipedia before, but apparently, I can now create a page there with the same name as a page here and they will be automatically linked. I don't know how to get that bot banned, so I am telling you. If you think that this is no big deal, please say so. (And yes, I know you have an account there. As of today so do I. Do you want **baby or should I take it:) Q Science (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

24 hour block, and extension to warning regarding inappopropriate words and phrases

Per the preceding section, you have been blocked for 24 hours for violating your 1RR restriction on Climate Change related articles.
You are also further notified that you shall not use demeaning or derogatory terms or phrases, broadly construed, when interacting with or discussing other contributors in respect of the General sanctions/Climate change probation area of articles (that is, not specifically on the article talkpages and probation pages but anywhere within the project). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Good grief you're a biased bozo William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Although I usually disagree with you, I just wanted to say thanks for all your contributions to the various global warming related articles. And also for occasionally making me smile. Thepm (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you, that is very kind, both for the thought and the manner of giving William M. Connolley (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My Compliments

I don't often see myself agreeing with /these, so when I do, I thought I'd take the opportunity to compliment you. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 23:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Kick, again

Please don't do stuff like this.[8] It doesn't help your case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I just volunteered you to play nicely if others stop harassing you. But you should play nicely even if others do harass you. Someone has to end the wasteful bickering. There's no reason (except maturity) that we can't have a civilized debate, and like SBHB says, whoever turns the other cheek the most makes everyone else look bad. And I make this same challenge to all of your talk page stalkers who disagree with you. Awickert (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess the answer to the question on playing nice back to harrassment is "why should you?". And I guess actually if you wanted to you could answer that question yourself. --BozMo talk 17:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Being mean is mean. And being mean on WP means that you get sanctioned in some way; civility seems to trump all. But perhaps most importantly, if everyone is nasty to each other, vile unproductive commentary results, and there is no forward progress on article writing. Progress on articles can only happen with mutual respect and civility. Awickert (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Cue "mutual" and "respect". Neither fake civility alone nor even real civility without respect are sufficient. That's why I'm so pissed off when people politely ignore the mainstream science and cherry-pick some outliers or blog posts to present a completely misleading picture. Of course, in the current climate, civility trumps all, so we have to politely point out errors... if necessary 5 times, or 20 times, or forever. Eternal vigilance and all that... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Respect" is a problem. Taken literally, your "Progress on articles can only happen with mutual respect..." means that the people who can't be respected (becasue they attempt to edit past their level of knowledge) need to leave those articles they can't cope with William M. Connolley (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there are different categories of respect (personal, knowledge-based, etc.). I agree with Stephan, and think that a lot of this is the unfortunate communication of extreme views around global warming. Ideally, someone using blogs or not knowing what they were talking about would need to be confronted only once about this, and then would respectfully ask for suggestions for better sources, which would be provided. But this is idealism. Awickert (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Few people are beyond meriting some respect; those who appear to be generally are not responsible for their predicament and I do not think civility should be limited to people who are aware of their own limitations. I have chaired company AGMs and put up with tiresome shareholders asking questions about how much money was spent on paperclips when management have tripled the value of their shares and if Gordon can keep his "bigoted" type comments until he thinks no one is listening then I think we should all be able to do the same on WP. --BozMo talk 22:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We're in a specialised environment. I merit no respect when attempting to discuss the details of string theory; we have people here who merit no respect when attempting to discuss the science of GW. The difference is, I know it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We're in a particular kind of collaborative work, and Comment on content, not on the contributor (lifted from LHvU's comment elsewhere) is a good and necessary requirement. Respect or otherwise for people is irrelevant, comment on their actions without drawing or implying anything about themselves. If their edits are rubbish, point out how the info is rubbish but don't suggest that implies anything about the editor. Also, I've had cause to advise another editor to stop classifying other editors into groups, which is similarly uncivil. We gotta be professional, or at lesst nice, in our interactions. . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What Boris said. And you overwrote my comment... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies. Fortunately, Bozmo has done the right thing. I see you couldn't resist taking the piss out of TGL's spelling William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not prefekt iether ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Drones? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Drone (bee) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:User en-4. Compare who is not in Category: Diplomacy-any. Comparing other people to animals in public is rarely perceived as appropriate, even if apt. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a standard English-ism. See-also Drones Club. It means, some one who takes up resources but does nothing useful William M. Connolley (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Which is precisely why you shouldn't say it. We can't say that people do nothing useful, even if they do nothing useful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Let me add whoosh. The link to en-4 was intended to point out, in an not-too-boastful way, that my English is good enough to know most meanings of many word, including drone - as in "he drones on and on and on" ;-). I disagree a bit with Boris. One can point out that people do nothing useful, one just needs to be sufficiently polite about it (I hope that construction is old-fashioned enough to further impress you with my language skills). Being sufficiently polite is a skill that both of us still can improve on. In the meantime, following Boris version is the safer route... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoosh, oh yes, good point: sorry, I didn't think about the en-4 at all. Well sorry: a wiki where you can't call useless people useless isn't worth talking about. Anyway, I've been having fun elsewhere ([9], etc) and don't really have time for the tedium William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Come on now... NW (Talk) 23:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, it is unfair being cruel to children. But there is a minimal standard of competence that should be expected from admins, and TW isn't able to meet that standard. Thank you for helping him out [10]. As you can probably tell, I'm getting a bit bored with the nonsense over there, and shall probably stop soon William M. Connolley (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

While I'm here, I hope you would be fine with me giving some general advice. I think you would be best off announcing that you are going to pull out of the Singer article, and work on some of the more science-y climatology articles. You do excellent work with those, and consensus on them is certainly far easier to attain than it is on BLPs of skeptics (never understood this whole 'sceptic' thing; you Brits are interesting). NW (Talk) 00:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And in practical terms, Fred Singer gets only about 2500 hits per month. Compared to viewing statistics for other climate articles it's hardly worth the bother. But I have to disagree with NW's implicit contention that this would help your case. It's open season on you. You could (and should) be a little blander in your dealings with others, but even if you were to behave like an angel people would fling dozens of irrelevant diffs saying that you were somehow culpable (as AGK has done). I'm regrettably coming to the conclusion that you have been found guilty and all that remains to be done is to marshal the evidence that will support the preordained verdict. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No harm in trying though. I see that Greenhouse effect is a highly viewed article that you have worked on in the past that needs some attention. No one that I have seen you conflict with often seems to be editing it at the moment, so your odds of being able to edit climate change in peace seem much higher there. NW (Talk) 03:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Offering my standard bet that if WMC sticks completely to basic-science articles he'll be followed there and people will hound him. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to think that Boris is right, though there are signs that the current crop of "skeptics" do actually recognise their lack of competence in science. As for Singer: I'm allowed to edit there, but I'm not. What more do you want? (Yes, I know the answer). Boris: interesting stats: where do you get them from? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where Boris gets them, but http://stats.grok.se/ is useful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Look on the History tab of any page (including this one) and there's a line that says "External tools" with "Page view statistics" at the end. You don't have to check them all at once because you can specify a month. (Note the number of monthly views for WMC's talk page is comparable to the number of views for the Fred Singer article. That probably says something, though I don't know what.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic topography

To William and his talk page stalkers:

Would you (ambiguously singular or plural) like to expand the portion of "Dynamic topography" that is about the oceans?

I am planning on doing some expansion of the solid-Earth-geophysics portion of that article (which currently covers both the dynamically-supported ocean elevations and topography due to motion of material in the mantle), but I think it would be a disservice to continue to ignore the ocean part. Ideally, we would have two separate standalone articles.

Awickert (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. How analogous are they? I never got through reading Gill, so maybe now is my chance :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know anything about it in the oceans; in the Earth it is due to motion in the mantle that creates normal tractions on interfaces such as the surface, the upper/lower mantle discontinuity, the core-mantle boundary, etc. Since it is supposed to be about the motion of seawater, I can imagine how the physics could be identical, but I can't say for sure and about to head out the door: off to see a friend perform in Guettarda's favorite musical, Awickert (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Careful. That is pretty clear evidence of a Cabal, or possibly a Cadre William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Cadre, I think. In our obligatory red shirts. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking about "Gang of N." It has a nice math/science ring to it, and evokes the Gang of Four. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

While "Gang of N" has a certain ring to it (the definitions are so amorphous, no one can agree how many there are), I think "Gang of i" might be more appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I was totally baffled by "Guettarda's favourite musical"...until I remembered that conversation. It was especially puzzling since I've never seen it, have no idea what it's actually about, and don't even know what comes after the second "Oklahoma!" Guettarda (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a good one - you should see it. Back to the topic: if it turns out that the underlying physics are the same, but just expressed in different media, I bet we could leave it at one article. If they are fundamentally different, then let's split. Awickert (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For many years of defending Wikipedia from the forces of the abyss. Ben Aveling 11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You were here when I joined Wikipedia, and you've been much more constant than I have. I've learned a great deal from you, and while we have not always agreed on who is evil and who is just different, I have always respected the passion with which you have fought what we both regard as monsters from the abyss. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It could not have come at a happier time William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock requested

{{unblock|Lar is too biased to be blocking me, and should not be blocking people he has an editing disagreement with}}

This was a good block. Putting material in a section where it is disallowed is not an "editing disagreement". Putting it back after it was removed is disruption. I doubt WMC can show I have any bias against him specifically, although I freely admit bias against some of the tactics he employs which have gotten him in trouble before. But I welcome review as always. ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

William, please don't play into Lar's hand by doing anything rash. On the broader point you need to understand that you have to be civil especially when others are acting badly. By doing so you keep the focus on their misbehavior. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WMC, and support unblocking him. He has a right to reply, and as I've so recently been reminded, an editor shouldn't remove another's comments, though moving them may have been appropriate. Prodego ^talk 19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

He knew where the comment belonged all along. Reinserting it in the same place instead of where it did belong, with an edit comment taking a swipe at me in passing, was disruptive edit warring. He's an experienced editor, he knows better. We don't have to clean up his mistakes. ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do. Comment by non-admins will be moved to the above section - not deleted. Many of us have, in good faith, moved comments from the admin to the editor section in the past when they were incorrectly placed. We did so to maintain the order of conversation. If you didn't want to move the comment you could have left it and someone else would have done it, but the rules are and the consensus has been to move comments, not delete them.

It also must be said it is a problem of your own making, since you are using the admin section inappropriately for threaded discussion, which obliges the rest of the community to take a disjointed approach to replying. Use the discussion section for discussion and there won't be a problem. Weakopedia (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to 2/0 William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Request that you remove your uncivil remarks

WMC, I have removed my remarks on Fred Singer's talk, and I've requested deletion of the user subpage that you were unhappy about. Now I am politely asking you to remove your uncivil remarks from the last week, including calling me a troll and questioning SV's honesty, and any other comments that assume bad faith or a condescending tone. Would you please do that so we can start fresh here? I've removed mine and I don't intend to add them back regardless, but I'm hoping that you'll remove yours too. ATren (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted my comments that reply to yours; the substance remove but the reacting snark is now gone. I think the idea of starting fresh from here would be good; how about: I don't attack you on the probation pages or elsewhere, and you don't attack me? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I just love happy endings. Please, please, guys, can both of you stick to this? And consider that even if the other one doesn't, it's to your benefit to do so anyway. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I also stand as witness to this agreement between you and will not hesitate to remind you of it. In the event that either thinks the other has broken it please could I request rather than retaliating or escalating the putatively offended party brings the diff to Boris or I? --BozMo talk 06:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC, thank you for redacting. I will make every attempt to adhere to this "cease fire", though I suspect we may sometimes differ on what constitutes an attack. So perhaps BozMo can act as informal mediator if we disagree? I'd be OK with that. In any case, I find I've been spending far too much time here lately, so I may back entirely out of this debate for a few weeks -- hopefully that break will help us put this long-standing battle behind us. ATren (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice of page ban

Under Climate Change general sanctions, I hereby inform you of the following result of the recent complaint about your edits:

• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing the article Fred Singer.

This sanction may be appealed to myself, the appropriate noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Examples of diffs presented as evidence include [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have consensus for this close. I certainly won't waste any time appealling to you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WIKISPEAK#consensus; first point, last sentence. -Atmoz (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• My reading of consensus is that your appeal is successful, and the ban is hereby overturned. The discussion at the earlier Enforcement request is continued at "William M. Connolley (Revisited)" - if you feel inclined to comment there, please would you address the substance and not the participants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel it would be helpful if you didn't edit the article, however. Please consider perhaps making a token unobtrusive and totally un-arguably good edit to the article and then leaving it without making a big deal about agreeing to any sort of voluntary prostration before the sceptic gods. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone - new version

You commented recently on some BLP issues concerning Richard Goldstone. I've written a considerably expanded and improved version of the article in my userspace at User:ChrisO/Goldstone. If you have any comments about this new version before it gets transferred into article space, please feel free to comment at Talk:Richard Goldstone#New version. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kick, again²

Don't call people's words "twaddle,"[16][17] or that other people's contributions aren't useful,[18] regardless of whether you think it's true. Even in cases where it is true -- like blatant vandalism -- you shouldn't say those things. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Kick again³. TheBoz is right, you kow... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course he is William M. Connolley (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice of page reban

Under Climate Change general sanctions, I hereby inform you of the following result of the recent complaint about your edits:

• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) ...is prohibited from editing the article Fred Singer, or the associated talk page, talk:Fred Singer, for a period of three months.

This sanction may be appealed to myself, the appropriate noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. ++Lar: t/c 02:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC) [19]

Sounds like the kind of malice and stupidity I expect from you William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: the above comment was "Struck by BozMo, with a warning of a talk page block if unstruck again. Per Risker [20] we are encourageed to "actively and openly attempt to moderate inappropriate behaviour by editors with whom they generally have a shared viewpoint on this topic area" and I am taking his request seriously, as should other kickers above. --BozMo talk 09:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)" but I object and have unstruck William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Per above, blocked with talk page block for 15 minutes. Usual appeal is allowed. If you unstrike the PA it will be taken as repeated and I will block you again. --BozMo talk 09:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "usual appeal is allowed"? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

By email only of course. Equally agreeing not to remove the strikethrough (by email to me or any other admin( would get the ban lifted immediately. --BozMo talk 10:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Singer, new factoid

With superb timing, I've come across a new Singer factoid, but alas people don't want it discussed here. Never mind; the archive is [21] and the blog is [22] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

3 hours block

you know why

Block has been successfully appealed to blocking admin basis Risker ruling "Let's face it. Blocking Giano is the administrative equivalent of touching the third rail. Few admins survive unscathed, and there is inevitably drama. Therefore the decision to block Giano or any other high profile editor should take into consideration opportunities for alternate actions (e.g., deleting the offending edit, discussing at AN or AN/I, giving a warning), whether the benefits of blocking outweigh the drama that will result from the perspective of the community at large, and holding Giano to the same standards as other blocked longterm editors (not a higher or unrealistic one), who as a group have a propensity to spout off on their talk pages. In particular, the escalating blocks were poorly considered. Risker (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC) "

I cannot find a valid response so I am lifting the block, albeit it that it is obviously gaming, childish etc since escalating blocks don't look approved--BozMo talk 10:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I think that was the correct decision based on precedent William M. Connolley (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)