: I don't bother warn every user over every piece of vandalism. Neither do you, neitehr does anyone else. So why exactly are you here with strawmen? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley#top|talk]]) 15:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
: I don't bother warn every user over every piece of vandalism. Neither do you, neitehr does anyone else. So why exactly are you here with strawmen? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley#top|talk]]) 15:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
: It's wrong. Mars has hardly anyatmosphere - the basic understanding of temperature on Mars is that it has no atmosphere. It's synthesis, as no source says what is synthesized here. It's a BLP violation, as it accuses a scientist of malfeasance. Was this not obvious to you when you read the passage? Which part of this wasn't clear from a first read? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 15:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
: It's wrong. Mars has hardly anyatmosphere - the basic understanding of temperature on Mars is that it has no atmosphere. It's synthesis, as no source says what is synthesized here. It's a BLP violation, as it accuses a scientist of malfeasance. Was this not obvious to you when you read the passage? Which part of this wasn't clear from a first read? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 15:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 15:14, 16 July 2010
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.
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.
"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]"
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. --PLUMBAGO06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Chillum14:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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!--MONGO03:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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/complex16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --BozMotalk19:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
[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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, talk17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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, talk19:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Aveling11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{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/c18:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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/c19:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
In good faith I believe that Lar is too WP:INVOLVED to make this cool down block. I am requesting review at WP:AN/I. WMC, please do not edit WP:GS/CC/RE until the hour has passed.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: the above comment was "Struck by BozMo, with a warning of a talk page block if unstruck again. Per Risker [14] 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. --BozMotalk 09:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)" but I object and have unstruck William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help with Climate articles
I am back trying to update the Schools Wikipedia for 2010 and trying (after quite a lot of feedback) in include more articles about the climate in various world regions. But many of the articles are all very poor quality, am I missing better ones or can someone help improve them? Articles like Tropical climate are really rubbishy stubs even though its a standard school topic but there are long turgid articles like Köppen climate classification which contain enough info to make them much better. Any talk page watchers may need reminding that the schools wikipedia gets loaded onto School intranets and has many millions of users so good content there does matter. --BozMotalk10:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The caption on the picture is a highlight too. C'mon someone, even a bit of cut and pasting from other articles would help... --BozMotalk14:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People can become angry when their worthless but pretty images are insulted. This is an example of an angry editor. The text reflects a bemused editorHey, that caption is mine! I think we're working on it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@BozMo: What's the deadline on updating it for 2010? I have a few introductory texts laying around that I can plagiarize from use as sources. -Atmoz (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically we are in to "manual updates only" so for the next three weeks if you put a note on my talk page with a linked version from the page history which is your improvement I can take it. --BozMotalk18:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And while we mention it fairly core articles are things like Wet seasonDry seasonHarmattan (actually wet season looks ok). It would be nice if there were obvious articles on Savanna, desert climate even. But a couple of years ago things like farming and soil were rubbish so I suppose there is progress. --BozMotalk19:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since it was decided at AfD to merge it into another article which never happened. Fortunately that one has a snowball's chance in hell of getting into the Schools Selection. --BozMotalk13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Misc CRU-type links
I'll dump them here. Feel free to steal them, or add more good ones.
[15] Mooney on Pearce In truth, climategate was a pseudo-scandal
Retired generals and the like talking about climate change as a national security issue. Looking at the science as non-scientists (but still very smart people)...One guy talking about being asked to look at the science, approaching it as a skeptic due to the political debate he had heard, but being convinced by the data. Talking about "100% certainty" from the perspective of a battlefield tactician. Things like that. Guettarda (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WMC, apparently someone is very angry with me. :) Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I just noticed you did this. I hope all is well. Take care of yourself, --CrohnieGalTalk22:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please self-revert here. [17]
Obviously, I haven't figured out how to link to a diff; sorry. It's where you replaced "Newsweek's blog" with "Newsweek" on the CRU controversy. See my comments and request to you here. Thanks! --Yopienso (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. (You have no idea how I struggled to link to what turned out to be not quite the right diff! :P I'm learning.) I'm willing to compromise with "Newsweek" as opposed to "Newsweek magazine." "Newsweek.com" would be even better. I had every intention of showing the blog is backed by Newsweek's cachet, but am not comfortable saying it's from the magazine when it isn't. I trust my removing the extraneous apostrophe will not be construed as a revert.
Yes! I just removed the apostrophe. Was tempted to add ".com" but the footnote, for those who care, is very clear that it's The Gaggle (Newsweek). We can shake on this! --Yopienso (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"No thanks"
I'm sure you have seen the thread on ATren's talk page. While ATren seems to be missing a few statements from the discussion that were important, the overall gist of his message is clear and I partially do agree with him. I get it, I really do, that you have worked for 6 years (!) to improve the state of Wikipedia's climate change articles. That's certainly very commendable, and probably one which you aren't thanked for enough. But ATren is also right, one of the reasons this dispute at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming escalated is because your initial reversions and talk page comments simply consisted of "no thanks". While to you and everyone else who commented, the rationale behind your edit is clear, you can't expect it to be clear to the person whom you are reverting unless they are simply trolling, else they would never have made that edit to begin with. Perhaps in the future, you could try to explain your reversions a little more clearly? Feel free to respond or remove this as you wish; I won't be offended either way with whatever you have to say. NW(Talk)20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a long history of explaining my reverts. I suggest you compare my history of explanations with, say, yer bog-standard "skeptic" like MN who routinely reverts without any form of explanation. I think you have been taken in by A "Shaw-y" Tren whose response is quite implausible. This is a minor kerfuffle caused by ZP5 trying to edit an article. ZP5 has a long and inglorious record of making *no* useful contributions to *any* cliamte change articles (don't believe me? Go on then - point to one). ZP5 routinely fails to understand what is going on and posts incoherent responses on talk. The problem in this little dispute is ZP5 whatever pathetic weaselling ATren may contrived to avoid disagreeing with ZP5. Truely it is remarkable: even in a case of clear disruption, because ZP5 is on "his side" ATren feels obliged to protect him. I see BozMo is doing his usual. Sigh. I see ATren is misinterpreting your post here as a warning to me equivalent to your warning to ZP5. You're responded to him, but you've failed to point out his error. Let me make it clear that I reject his interpretation of your message, above. If I have erred I urge you to clarify your intent William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By no means did I intend my post above to be a warning, more of a friendly reminder of sorts. I agree that in general you do a fine job with explaining your reverts, I just think that this particular case could have been better handled. Perhaps we can just chalk this up to a difference of opinion on these matters. On the other hand, if this exact same situation came up a few months ago as Kim suggests, that does change things. NW(Talk)23:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for taht clarification; I should learn to ignore ATren more :-).
(edit conflict)While i agree that "no thanks" isn't very informative, and a quite a bit too dismissive... I disagree that it was in this case. The reason for that is that ZP5's tagging isn't new. He did the same thing in January or February. With explanations on talk as well. There is a limit to the amount of time that anyone has to invest in something like this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that is the situation that i was referring to. An additional note to this is that several of these issues at the time where turned around, since the list had just come back from yet another AfD process. Note that i also think that this is rather tightly coupled to the issues with ZP5 on Scientific opinion on climate change at the time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You tell me, your the one that removed it. What is unsuitable about it? Don't you think the good faith contributor that added it at least deserves an explanation? Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was added with citations, if you thought is was a vandal edit you should have warned the user. If you had a reason to remove it you should have stated it in your edit summary. as in revert, I don't think this cited content was added in good faith and leave him a note on his talkpage..as in I don't think you added this in good faith . What is not in good faith about it? Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's wrong. Mars has hardly anyatmosphere - the basic understanding of temperature on Mars is that it has no atmosphere. It's synthesis, as no source says what is synthesized here. It's a BLP violation, as it accuses a scientist of malfeasance. Was this not obvious to you when you read the passage? Which part of this wasn't clear from a first read? Hipocrite (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
