Revision as of 21:14, 2 August 2009

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. This is a Happy Talk Page. No bickering. Proverb for the year: if you have nothing new to say, don't say it. I tend to remove pointless chatter on this page. If I've removed your edit with a summary of "See the proverb for the year at the top", this is the proverb I mean. If I've simply rolled back your edit, it is because I've told you this before and am now bored with you. Sorry: it it up to you to be more interesting. I live in hope that some people might read and think about the quote from Hobbes, above. If you're here to talk about conflicts of interest, please read (all of!) this. You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email. 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. Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question. My Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions • Block log Dispute resolution, Bible style: If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. — Matthew 18:15

The Holding Pen

The <div> tag and Cascading Style Sheets_tag_and_Cascading_Style_Sheets-The_Holding_Pen-2009-02-03T06:39:00.000Z">

The <div> tag is part of the HTML standard, and in essence lets you group things logically in a HTML page. Since different user agents have different needs and treat the data differently (e.g. a screen reader for the visually impaired, a bot or a normal browser like Firefox) the rendering of elements and the logical structure has been separated into two different languages: HTML and CSS.

HTML is supposed to structure the document logically while CSS is used to change the visual appearance of a page. A website usually only has one or a few CSS documents (style sheets). Many HTML documents can then share the same style sheet, providing consistent formatting across the site.

The div element has two attributes, class and style, that are linked to the style sheet. The class attribute determines what "class" the element belong to. It is then possible to define a default style for elements of this class in the style sheet .

The style element is what's most interesting here though, it lets you override the default style of an element. So the part within the style="" is actually CSS.

W3C (website) is in charge of the CSS standard and it can be found on their website. Unfortunately, the dominating browser sets the de facto standard so things might not work as expected or even be implemented yet.

The W3C specifications aren't particularly good for learning but they are good as a reference. What you are looking for is probably: .

If you search the webb for CSS you will find countless examples and tutorials. Quick Googling turned up this for example: .

I took the liberty to modify your div tags on this page as an example, feel free to modify and revert as you like. I hope this is somewhat helpful at least. :)
—Apis (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)_tag_and_Cascading_Style_Sheets"> _tag_and_Cascading_Style_Sheets">

Thanks! William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reviving Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics

Crownest has expressed interest in reviving this. Since you were a member of the FD project (now converted into a taskforce), I'm wondering if you'd be a part of the Taskforce. The taskforce is undergoing a significant overhaul at the moment, and by the end of it, it should be fairly easy to get around and there should be a nifty compendium of useful tools for people interested in FD. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I can help in small ways, though no longer being professionally involved. I wonder if there is an embedded prog taskforce? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Prog taskforced?Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ocean acidification

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. 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."

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 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)

Double diffusive convection

Bit surprised there is no article on DDC? Has the term gone out of fashion? It was half the course in "Buoyancy in Fluid Dynamics" when I did Part III 23 years ago. --BozMo talk 13:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember is was a nice demo on the fluid dynamics summer school DAMPT ran. Not sure I would still be confident of writing it up 10:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I might have to suggest it to Huppert or someone. --BozMo talk 10:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If one of you two makes a stub, I'd be willing to read up on it and make it a longer stub. Awickert (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What a kind offer. I have started here: Double diffusive convection--BozMo talk 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All right - I'll get to it (eventually). It's on my to-do list. Awickert (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing the Scarlet CF

Needless to say, I'd object to this. The occasion that took you to Cold fusion was edit June 1 edit warring by Hipocrite, and the article had been protected as a result of his gaming RfPP. I was not edit warring on June 1, though he claimed it. What he wrote in the RfPP was quite deceptive, as will come out. He was the revert warrior, repeatedly, on that article. He had, for about a month, been using bald reversion to resist improvements to the article, and disrupting discussion on the Talk page, taking extreme positions; you can see this in the edit he made immediately after requesting protection, which introduced material to the lead that was so biased not even he supported it -- nobody supported it -- when the question was asked in my attempt to find a quick consensus on version to revert to. Even though I had not misbehaved at Cold fusion (beyond hitting the 3RR edge on May 21, when I finally confronted the reversion practices of Hipocrite), I was willing to accept a ban because it was on him as well, and removed such a disruptive editor from the already difficult mix there. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bygones. Hipocrite (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree with Abd that the situation is not symmetrical. I will consider H's request. I've already made some comments that Abd is aware of re his position: applies, amongst others. If Abd is interested in my current views on his position, or wishes to apply for the ban to be removed, he is welcome to ask. However, posts demonstrating total disconnection from reality will be removed ] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The contrasts in tone and substance between Hipocrite's and Abd's comments in this section are enlightening. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page (just for all those watching here :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Current

CF topic bans

and for details William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]

Reviewed: William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, looking back at the ANI ban review, I still think that it would be better to simply send it again to ANI to confirm that the community supports that the ban is indefinite pending review (because some people, including the closing admin, appeared to think that it was just a review of a one month topic ban). --Enric Naval (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup 4

Starting discussion at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Cambridge 4. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

CSS site

Forgive the quick note, but I happened to notice the comments at the top about CSS, and some places to learn about it. I second the site mentioned, but also take a look at the CSS Zen Garden at ] - it's a great place to quickly see what CSS is capable of doing. Basically, it's a site where people take the exact same HMTL page, but use a different .css file, and completely change how the page looks. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

CC

I've just noticed climate change has accumulated lots of cruft, not to mention a distressing number of obvious errors. If you want to help with cleanup that would be great. BTW you may be interested in this. Boris noticing climate change have bourgeois excess and provocations. Duty is assisting heroic efforts to institute reliability. Basis for new five-year plan here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yo. What happened to the Russian accent? It is about time I actually did something useful for climate articles instead of attracting flak for blocking people. OK William M. Connolley (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Spiffing William M. Connolley (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help.

Thanks for the offer of help to sort this mess out, I accept . This is a daunting problem, going on for several years, so hopefully you have your eyes open as to how deep it goes.

The bottom line here is that for several years I have watchlisted and edited on 'firearm' related topics. I am deeply committed to the core Wikipeidia values WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and I have stepped up and vigorously defended these values on 'firearms' topics in the face of intense personal attack. Very often this boils down to a conflict between what individual editors believe to be truth, and what is found in the balance of the reliable sourcing. I take pride in the fact that I have actually sat down and read many books on this topic, from the full spectrum of POVs, and then try to apply what they say to the articles.

As basic as that sounds, it often comes into conflict with editors who either simply "know" the truth, or who base their truth on reading just the literature of the advocacy press. The trouble with firearms articles is that a high number of editors come there with "you can take my gun from my cold dead hands" entrenched values. Some editors view firearms advocacy work at Misplaced Pages as being good for the firearms advocacy cause because Misplaced Pages is influential on court clerks, even at the Supreme Court . In the case of Yaf, there is a long history between him and I, including his careful monitoring of my edit pattern and his repeated quick reporting me for blocks. I hope you don't get your sysop privileges revoked over this grudge. I try to avoid edit warring, but you must be aware that the difference between edit warring and collaborative editing can be a gray line, especially on articles with heated POV push wars like the firearms topics. I very much prefer collaborative editing, but that editing environment is sadly missing from firearms articles. To that end, I would like to hear your advice, and/or to accept your help to bring a collaborative editing environment to the 'firearms' type of articles. (If possible.) I have tried for a very long time to achieve collaborative editing there, with a very limited amount of success. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Given this is a long-term problem I doubt it will be resolved quickly. I'll have a poke around. What in particular would you point me at? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The biggest room for improvement I think would be for editors there to answer each others question. (And, to focus questions on the article and the implementation of WP:Policy.) Presently, most questions are not answered, and without a dialog the 'consensus' is not based on reasoning but rather based on truth, meaning, based on a vote of personal opinion. The second important thing would be for there to be a culture where personal attacks, and ad hominiem arguments, is not tolerated. We should be able to discuss the article based on reliable sources spanning the full spectrum of POV's and not just cherry picked sources from the favorite advocacy press. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't answer your request for particulars. Here are two recent specifics:

1) Presently at the 2A article I am interested in giving coverage to the American experience section for the time period immediately prior to the drafting of the 2A. I have inserted text sourced to books published by mainstream well respected publishing houses. SMP0328 says that this material is unrelated to the 2A and has deleted. When I ask SMP0328 to look to the books to see what the sources say, he says that he has no requirement to read those books. The net effect on the talk page is that this ends the discussion, leaving me guessing the reason for the deletion of the passage is that SMP0328 just doesn't like it. When I restored the passage, Yaf reports 3RR. When I try to discuss, the discussion is ended. Most of the questions I asked are unanswered. No way forward, and the spirit of using balanced reliable sourcing to edit article is thwarted.

2) There is also an ongoing dispute whether there is a neutrality dispute justifying a POV-section tag. The editors that favor the existing POV say that the they believe that the POV-section tag is a 'badge of shame'. When I revert the tag, Yaf reports 3RR. When I try to discuss the specifics, Ferrylodge ignores my discussion about the POV-section tag and diverts to discussion of me and my behavior. Again, no discussion of the issue, and no way forward.

Hopefully these particulars answer your question. These two examples of methods to avoid discussion of the article are very much part of a long term pattern there. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, that helps, especially when I realise that you mean Second Amendment to the United States Constitution :-). I'll look. Meanwhile, does Yaf's apparent retirement affect the situation at all? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

We will see. This is Yaf's second or third retirement of which I am aware. SaltyBoatr (talk)

One other particular: You offered to help, so I am asking for help. For well over a year I have been engaged in fruitless attempts to collaborate with the editors SMP0328 and Yaf, which they view as a tag team battle against me. Unfortunately this evokes a revert war back and forth. I don't see other options when SMP0238 flatly refuses to engage in the alternative of WP:DR procedures. What is an editor to do when they encounter a dispute where there is refusal to WP:DR? SaltyBoatr (talk)

See also a similar refusal to participate in WP:DR from Ferrylodge. Bear in mind that of the four participants of the recent revert war which resulted in my block, I am willingly to participate in good faith in WP:DR and the other three participants refuse. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire, mon frere. I said: "I certainly cannot be expected to join in any further WP:DR procedures with you, if you continue to start noticeboard discussions without alerting anyone at this talk page." One cannot participate in that which one has no knowledge of, can one?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking of Wapondaponda

I noticed you unblocked wapondaponda thats cool, we all deserve second chances, though i also noticed you did not issue a article ban for race of the ancient egyptians controversey i.e that article is under probation and using socks at that article is a automatic ban for sure--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wpp isn't article banned (by me). Wpp ought to be aware that he is under close scrutiny and should be on best behaviour. If you have concerns about his present behaviour, please let me know William M. Connolley (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was very generous of you William. However, I sincerely doubt Wapondaponda has changed his ways, as he has basically reverted to the same old POV versions of articles that he was pushing in the past. I too will give him the benefit of the doubt, but this is not a good start. Causteau (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That is true i agree with causteau,he is back to his old pov tricks,i reverted him at the Haplogroup E1b1b(after he reverted another users addition) article because he removed what i saw as a reliable sourced alternate origin for this group outside of east africa, he proceeded right to my article and dispensed with the threats,acutally useing you WMC as the billy club--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Scribe, AFAIK, you have never edited the E1b1b article. Why did you decide to edit only after me, I don't know. I would be happy to have your contributions on the subject, but if you are editing just because of me, then that is not right. Yes, if a pattern emerges, where you simply revert content that I edit on any article, simply because it is me, and not based on the merit of an argument, I will ask WMC to review your edits. I am on a 1RR, but that does not mean that you should knowingly take advantage. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been very critical of Wapondaponda but I feel I must comment. Whatever the faults of Wapondaponda's editing this is not one. This particular edit was absolutely in the consensus, and the only possibility based on sourcing, and Wikiscribe has chosen an awkward moment to leap in to an article he does not know and defend SOPHIAN, who has no idea what he is talking about, and is basically defending a very old edit of Causteau which Causteau no longer defends. Wapondaponda did his homework on the talkpage and has now gone a step further than previous (already decisive) argument by showing that the scientist supposedly connected to the old texts on this OLD website can be shown to have a different opinion. I have tried to contact Wikiscribe about this case and I am optimistic that reason will prevail. I have yet to see Causteau explain to any of the folks who do his reverts for him where they are wrong, indeed he seems to be developing quite a habit of using others to do stuff for him. I'll go out on a limb and say that even at his worst Wapondaponda can be engaged in rational and polite discussion on talk pages, and this makes him a far superior collaborator than SOPHIAN and Small Victory and Causteau. (I do not believe anyone can say I agree on points of fact or sourcing or wording with Wapondaponda more than the afore-mentioned warriors, so that is not my motivation for giving credit here where credit is due.) In recent days Wapondaponda has tried hard on talkpages and received deliberately provocative responses from people who presumably think they are in with a chance of a knock out. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda has not abided by the very liberal and very generous conditions of his unblock, one of the two conditions has not been abided by ,the WP:1RR, him along with SOPHIAN has been edit warring at the E1b1b haplogroup article, he has even made a disingenous complaint against his partner in crime when he has been doing the same and is only editing under following conditions set foward by you, here are the 4 reverts of the same material,rv2,

rv3 rv4 --Wikiscribe (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to work with any editor, be it Wikiscribe or SOPHIAN or anybody else. However, SOPHIAN has made no effort at demonstrating that he has the depth of knowledge of the subject matter in the various articles, that he is editing. He typically reverts my edits by accusing me of being "Afrocentric" rather than providing any details of what he disagrees with. This is not a good enough reason. SOPHIAN apparently has not even bothered to read some of peer reviewed publications on the matter. For instance on his talk page, he demonstrates that he hasn't read one of the most important publications on the article E1b1b. He requested certain information, which I volunteered to provide . After doing so, SOPHIAN deleted the comments from his website and continued edit warring, pretending as though the scientific evidence I offered him didn't exist.. So I was willing to work with SOPHIAN, providing any information that he wanted, and he has rejected my cooperation. I have found it impossible to work with this editor as he is irrational and believes in going it alone. As for Wikiscribe, I get the impression that he believes Misplaced Pages is a Soap Opera or a game, in which he tries to get other editors blocked. I see very little content related edits from him. He is mostly looking out for mistakes in editors. Wikiscribe, if you ever decide that you want to create a great article, let me know. knowWapondaponda (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda,once again you have been edit warring along with SOPHIAN at that article and that breaks the WMC condition for leting you edit,you can try to decipher my motive all you want, but it's up to you not to go around and revert the same content more than once--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda has also been edit warring at the Genetic history of Europe article in the Sub-Saharan African admixture section (SOPHIAN was just blocked but, inexplicably, Wapondaponda wasn't). Even worse, he's been reverting sourced, neutral material and replacing it with rampant OR and POV, which includes unsourced claims as well as distortions of what sources say.

Also, during the time he was previously blocked, he created a new sock almost every single day to try to circumvent the ban, making a mockery of the rules. And for that he gets rewarded with a second chance (and now a third one it seems)? That makes no sense. I think that, all things considered, a permanent ban would be in order at this point. ---- Small Victory (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Small Victory is just upset because I asked him to WP:PROVEIT, by providing direct quotes to back up his original research. He has failed to find them, so he is whining by trying to have me blocked. If he is able to find a direct quote from his source, I won't dispute him, but he can't. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiscribe, no matter how bad you think Wapondaponda is, that is no justification for encouraging other editors working on articles where you are not working, to keep taking actions which get them blocked. More generally, the idea that all edits "against" Wapondaponda must be good ones is obviously silly. Wapondaponda's edits are more normal and acceptable than SOPHIAN's by a long way, and often his position is dead average. If you want to help SOPHIAN then please look through his contributions page and try to explain to him what he is doing wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Andrew you seem to be a little misguided, where did i encourage bad behaviour at a particular article(and if so which article) i am not working that would get "them" blocked??I know i made a jest comment something to the fact on SOPHIAN talk that i think you might be talking about ""that WMC has set a new presidence that maybe if you play sockpuppet games and keep sock puppeting people would get there block(which in reality would end up not serving a block at all) lifted if he promised to be good etc etc "lol" ". If that is encourageing bad behaviour that is not my fault i did not take unilateral action to unblocking a serial sock master with out gaining some sort of consensus from other admins or even from other editors that he used socks to lampoon ,now Andrew i suggest you worry about other editors concerns at that genetic article thats been raised by small victory instead of watching and reporting every little comment i make around the encylopedia, a few editors have came here and addressed concerns about sock master wapondaponda breaking the rule of no more than one revert for example at a article and actually edit warring at articles etc etc--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh Andrew i just seen on a notice boardanother editor User:Pdeitiker complaining about edit warring going on at these genetic articles which what a surprize one of the parties includes wapondaponda ,but yet your hear worring about every jest comment i make on wikipedia--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it all for nothing...?

After four years of blind, lock-step support and 114 edits to the GW page (!), I still don't even merit mention on this list. How disappointing. Guettarda (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear oh dear: you've failed your sekret kabal test :-). Its hard what to say in this circumstance; you could take refuge in that Abd has failed to notice that Stephan is an admin, despite the big sticker on his talk page. And what is JP to do with all this? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I bet he'd add you if you ask nicely. Dragons flight (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And you? Come to that, what about Boris? This is an outrage. I suggest you all protest on his talk page immeadiately William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My previous efforts to communicate with Abd on his talk page resulted in the standard "go away" message familiar to so many. I have respected his wishes and will continue to do so. If another member of the cabal another respected editor wishes to make the request on my behalf I would not object. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Whee, I'm there! - basking in the fame & glory. Vsmith (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Careful, Big Brother is watching you William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if i have to use the {{tinc}} template now as well? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Karađorđevo agreement/meeting

Hi Wiliam! I'd like to ask you for advice. I'd like to put a pool (vote) on the name of this article . There are two proposed names (meeting and agreement). There are no proof for the second but event is known as such in some media (don't know which, its numbers, or anything similar) and some users prefer to call it that. Other users (myself included) think this is wrong as there is no proof of any agreement, and that the second name is presented in a small minority of media. So I'd like to put it on vote. How can I do that ? :)

Also I puted part of the article into new article do you have any suggestions about that? --Čeha (razgovor) 09:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your split of the article seems to have met with some disapproval Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bosnia and Herzegovina division as part of Karađorđevo meeting for what look like reasonable reasons. I would have expected you to be asking about Karađorđevo agreement. In which case, the std advice is that voting is bad, trying to find consensus is good William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Chidel

Hello William. This particular user has been making the most of a number of (formerly) open proxies to edit. I have discussed it with User:John Vandenberg, perhaps you would like to contact him? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I also believe the editor is currently using another open proxy, and is editing right now, as User:207.61.241.100. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And was also blocked on an open proxy using IP address 190.146.244.52. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

and see above talk under "right to disappear" in case you want to combine the two topics.

Wanted to alert you

You'd placed a WP:3RR block on this IP earlier, and I had made a couple posts about the IP's editing and behavior. The IP came in to respond and basically made a legal threat - "my neighbor is a cop so I can tell him..." I do realize this is a very young person and I am resisting asking him or her to put his mommy on the phone. In any case, I wanted you to see this. Are there grounds there to extend a block? This is only going to get worse, I fear. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look very promising but hopefully just blowing off steam. I'd only re-block if the actual editing is a problem William M. Connolley (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Tempting...

...but unlikely to be helpful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Abd is supposed to post at that section, and you should respect that, even you are annoyed that he tacks a very long comment just under a comment that you made. Notice that I have also posted too-long comments to the case. Leave that post alone if someone restores it, and let the clerks sort it out. I notice that you already left a message to Hersfold about your reversion, which is good, and now you should wait for his answer, lest you burn out the poor clerk with some many escalations every time that he takes more than half an hour to handle an issue. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely agree this is one for the clerks to sort out. But having outsiders joining in just isn't helpful. Hopefully the clerks can keep some sort of order in this case - if Abd gets to scrawl trash all over the place it will be unreadable William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Best to resist temptation. Have a piece of Kendal Mint Cake instead of that juicy worm. Mathsci (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I invite to taste this local speciality of my land: "pets de monja" (nun farts), also known anecdotically as "pits de monja" (nun breasts). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Boris advising to sound doctrine. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• It would be best to undo that last revert. Edit warring over the case won't help anyone, even if it is drivel thats what collapse boxes and the clerks are there to deal with. Spartaz 12:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice folks, not to mention the food William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi

I reported Muntuwandi @ socks copyright violations here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Muntuwandi The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sophian, since your return, you have specifically targeted my edits. On Haplogroup N (mtDNA), you have never edited the article before, never discussed anything on the talk page. Why are you choosing to revert, without discussion.

• diff
• diff
• diff

Wapondaponda (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is about copyright violations if people are allowed to break them wikipedia will cease to exist. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Need some advice

I noticed a recent edit to Grey Wolves included this sentence; "It is accused of terrorism." Followed by 3 references. Shouldn't this statement have the name of a country/countries that have recognized this political group as terrorists? I thought WP:WTA did not allow for such a bland statement. I was going to remove it and place a message on the talk page asking for some form of international recognition, but figured it would be ignored and the article simply reverted. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a WP:WEIGHT issue. Loads of groups have been accused of terrorism by someone. Whether it is appropriate here depends on whether this is a fringe opinion or widely shared. It would seem reasonable to add "by X and Y". But in this case the refs are not immeadiately accessible so it is hard to be sure William M. Connolley (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

List of wars 2003–current again

78.160.23.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is back. Might semi-protection be a better idea? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, dnoe William M. Connolley (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration suggestion

TenOfAllTrade's had a good idea vis-a-vis the Abd arbitration case. Please see here Raul654 (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but those opposing Abd could do worse than to let GoRight continue presenting the case on his behalf... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting conundrum, and there are (at least) two schools of thought. Boris quite concisely addresses the benefits of the 'give him enough rope' approach. Under other circumstances I'd be more concerned about a party to arbitration using someone like GoRight as a stalking horse, but in this case Abd seems perfectly willing to argue and advance absurd and out of touch proposals in his own name.

If the ArbCom had shown more backbone in the past about booting out unproductive participants from the Arbitration process, I might be more enthusiastic about asking them to do so in this case. As it stands now, though – and despite the suggestion being my own – I fear that adopting such an injunction might almost lead to more disruption in other forums in the future. (Here comes the "Abd v. ArbCom" RfC, RfArb, and the appeal to Jimbo, and so forth. Frankly, I worry that the only way to generate a durable reduction in drama through such an injunction would be for the extant Arbitration to adopt Raul's proposal to ban Abd. Even then, we'd have GoRight stirring things up.)

That said (and I am aware of just how equivocal I'm being), it's entirely possible that I'm being too pessimistic, and that the ArbCom will be able to craft a suitably nuanced yet thorough injunction and remedies. Given that I'm not a party to the current Arbitration (indeed, my only role appears to be as a prop for Abd's sham claim that he sought mediation), I shan't presume to dictate how you might choose to prosecute your case.

One last thought — there appear to be indications (particularly NYB's response to Enric's motion for an extension of the evidence phase) that the Committee is preparing to move into decisionmaking sooner rather than later. If that is true, then the question of GoRight's participation will rapidly become moot (though it could serve as an object lesson for future cases). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Even then, we'd have GoRight stirring things up. - Given the multitude of GoRight's other bad behaviors, I think he's headed for arbitration regardless of the outcome of the Abd case. If Abd is banned by the arbcom and GoRight uses that as a pretext to stir the pot yet further, then I think it's only a case of hastening the inevitable. Raul654 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the stuff there and replied. In brief, if arbcomm aren't prepared to properly oversee the case then I don't think suggesting they properly oversee the case is going to help William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

23Prootie

Please keep an eye on WW2 casualties, Proodie23 has made edits, I will ask him to discuss them on the talk page. I don't want an edit war with this guy--Woogie10w (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Proodie23 made a number of unsourced changes to World War Two casualties today, I reverted them and asked him to discuss any future changes on the talk page--Woogie10w (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have asked 23Prootie to discuss his edits to World War II Casualties His answer was that the talk page was full and he then proceeded to restore the unsourced material. He wants to discuss his changes on my talk page only.

Also I see he he has renewed the edit war at the Allies of WW2.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started a thread on the Talk:World War II casualties# Werner Gruhl talk page re the recent posts ofUser:23prootie. I would appreciate your comments --Woogie10w (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd endorse these requests for you to review 23prootie's edits. Given this editor's long history of edit warring, ignoring consensus and not responding to previous blocks, I I don't think that you should have revoked their block for what was a repeat of the exact behavior which had led to them being blocked for week-long periods previously. Given that 23prootie has now grossly misused the generous chance you gave him by continuing to edit war, I would strongly suggest that you reimpose their block. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, he did not learn much from his last block]...I don't know, but he should be at least warned again....--Jacurek (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him for two weeks. Not so much for the reverting, since you both are (please mark reverts with "rv") but for the complete lack of discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Your Opinion would be appreciated

I would appreciate your comments regarding the use of sources Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sources for WW2 losses in Asia

Thanks --Woogie10w (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion. I would suggest that if two apparently reliable sources disagree then you either find a third, or you note that the two disagree William M. Connolley (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup 1 August

FYI, the fourth Cambridge meetup will occur on the afternoon of Saturday 1 August. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Charles but I was in Wales. I think it is nicer in Wales William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Reclosed a 3RR case

Hello WMC. I've reclosed this WP:AN3#User:Michael H 34 reported by User:Slp1 (Result: 24h) as an edit-warring violation, since the user continued to make the same change on 27 July, after your previous closure as 'Stale' on 24 July. User participates on Talk but clearly does not have consensus to include the Sacks and Thompson reference. He could, of course, follow WP:DR to get wider opinions but prefers to revert. Let me know if you disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wage slavery

Any way you could intervene with this person who seems to use multiple accounts to return to Wage slavery in a very disruptive way? Could you also refer to this in that regard

3RR complaint about NeutralityForever

3RR complaint about the IP

ANI complaint about the original sockpuppetry

The IP's block log

Block log of NeutralityForever

Block log of Entresasix

Protection log of Wage slavery. - skip sievert (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI the matter has also been proposed at User talk:EdJohnston#Return of problematic_editor. In my opinion, the views of at least one other admin are needed, or a proper SPI filing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

High Tides (Non-Wiki Question)

Hey, I think you're into this sort of thing. Have any opinions about the unusually high tides the east coast of North America has been seeing? Sounds pretty interesting. OlYeller 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

augh

I'll admit I didn't really assume good faith about the Abd arbcom given some recent actions of yours, but after reading Abd's posts on the case I've done a complete 180. He is even more annoying than Giovanni33. Jtrainor (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah well I'm glad you've seen the light in the end :-). Lets hope it isn't an oncoming train William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with you

Re "But you can call me WMC" on the evidence page: Thank you, Dr. Connolley. (I trust calling you "Dr. Connolley" is also acceptable.)
I thought you might like to know that, although I've criticized you for blocking Abd, nevertheless I agree with you on these comments when you declined to unblock Abd. Refraining from blocking someone for a minor violation is not the same thing as changing the rules so that what was a minor violation becomes technically and actually allowed. I agree with you that usually, simpler rules are better. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. In that case your evidence section "WMC wikilawyered by blocking Abd for a harmless edit" is rather hard to understand. I find that section offensive. It is also incorrect - I didn't say "a" banned editor I said SA, which is a different matter. You also appear to have missed my comments under "other stuff" of 23:05, 25 July 2009 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you back, and I'm sorry for causing offense. Is it because of the use of the word "wikilawyered"?

The distinction I'm making is: between blocking, and unblocking. The criteria for each are somewhat different: even if a block was inadvisable, sometimes reversing it isn't necessary or advisable.

I've edited my evidence section and I hope you'll let me know if you still find it inaccurate in any way, and that if so we'll be able to resolve the difference. I hadn't considered the later diff relevant since it is advice to SA, not advice to admins about whether to block nor does it seem to me to constitute a retraction of your earlier statement: I see a distinction between behaviour which is prohibited (or advised or warned against) and behaviour after which it's advisable to block. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the word wikilawyering is offensive. I don't understand the distinction you are making above: you agree with my assertion that the ban has to be simple, which implies a block for breaking it. Your implied chronology is wrong too, as I've explained: I made a comment in the SA case; that case went against him; effectively, arbcomm rejected my opinion (so what is new?). I then advised SA that he couldn't get away with such edits. Hence my blocking Abd is entirely consistent with my previous statements. Given that, I don't see how your section heading is supportable. Or the section itself, really William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)