Revision as of 22:14, 15 July 2009

I'm busy on the river and may not respond swiftly to real life. 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)

Wapondaponda yet again

Hey William. Wapondaponda's back with yet another sock. Cheers, Causteau (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

2009-07-05T23:41:47 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs | block) blocked Emperius scrooge (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And here is his latest sock. Causteau (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear; and it looks like he has created yet another one as well. He's again canvassing other pages for support specifically with regard to the Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe article, just like he did with his User:In the government sock. Cheers, Causteau (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! But was the User:Harvey_Gustav sock also blocked? It's him as well: same user page look, articles visited, familiarity with editing right off the bat, he even quoted the exact same passage from the exact same brand new study as Wapondaponda to advance the exact same argument (example: "A higher-resolution analysis (Fig. 1c) reveals a distinct gradient of Bantu-related ancestry from west to east across Eurasia..."). Causteau (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That too William M. Connolley (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think another dormant wapondaponda sock has just awoken --Wikiscribe (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Done William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiscribe is a sock puppeteer. See . It's very concerning that the victims of his abuse have been banned. I hope the situations will be corrected promptly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Race Debate

Hi.

I am curious about whether or not there can be a more fair handed remedy to dealing with the Ancient Egyptian Race Debate article. I read it a lot, view the updates and I contribute sporadically in a way as to present insight that is unarguably merited. However, until I master the use of citations, uploading copyright safe pictures, I am in a way hampered. I feel the Ancient Egyptians were black. But despite that, I understand the article is about describing the controversy. What is very unfair however is that there is some push to make it appear that an entire side of the issue is engaging in sockpuppetry and what not. I had not been contributing hardly until a few days ago, and lo, on my page is an accusation of this. (I mainly view the article, and skim the talk page). What I'd like to know is this: Can you provide an even handed way of handling this issue? I feel that we are administered to death in the article by the other side who wishes to simply silence the notion (even to making it appear it is a fringe debate, or not even debatable at all) that the Egyptians were black or were of a black Nilo-Saharan origin. Even if you disagree with the conclusion, it's certainly debatable as even the first archaeologists had concluded that they were a black race. Can you please offer some balance to this on the article. One reason I do not contribute too much is because I have seen how other users are simply administered by zealots who find ways to use the Admin system itself to silence people like me. Please do your part to end that. --Panehesy (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What is very unfair however is that there is some push to make it appear that an entire side of the issue is engaging in sockpuppetry and what not - if you've been watching this, you'll be aware that one user has been very actively socking. That makes those that agree very closely with that account automatically suspect.

As to the issue itself: this is clearly a matter of dispute on wiki. I have no opionions myself (I haven't even read the page) but am merely trying to help hold the ring.

William M. Connolley (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK which user? The only user that I notice that was cited for sockpuppetry is User:Wikiscribe that I have had frequent clashes with. That is the only example. I don't agree with him. I agree with you, the issue is clearly a matter of dispute, but the article is to cover the dispute itself. I keep seeing contributors try to make it a referendum against Afrocentricism, a related issue, but not so related that the issues are interchangable. So what I have done now, that I am banned, without even the courtesy of the process beforehand, (I told you, as my edits are more effective against the POV pushing) I have submitted an arbitration to have Ice_Cold_Beer removed from administration of the article. If you are holding the ring, can you advise on how to fairly administer the article? The only admins involved are working on behalf of one POV. --Panehesy (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice: Blocking of User:Dimitri Yankovich

Sry, but I have serious doubts if blocking someone just because he "looks like" a sockpuppet is ok. You may have notice that I left a comment to your statement on the "Ancient Egypt" talkpage. I now raised this issue on the admin noticeboard. No insult intended, just serious concerns if this is the proper way to handle sockpuppet suspicions. Gray62 (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't see the talk comment. Raising it on ANI is fine, if you're worried. I see you've had the obvious answer William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Is deleting everything posted by socks necessary on talkpages

Noted you've had some interplay with User:SOPHIAN concerning the sock puppets of Muntawandi. I am a bit concerned that he has taken it upon himself to act to delete even old postings on talkpages, which of course makes talkpages hard to follow. This sock puppet was not a simple vandalist and often played a role in debate, whether good or bad, so there are entries on the talkpages which were part of on-going discussions. (Frankly, just looking at edit quality and contributions to debate the sock puppets are far better for Misplaced Pages than SOPHIAN.) Deleting them makes old discussions make no sense? Wondering if is really normal to go back and select talkpage materials to delete. A secondary aspect of this, which might confuse the issue, is that some of these deletions are being remarked as being done in order to avoid copyright violations (deletions of maps), but I am quite uncertain as to whether this is appropriate in these cases at all. (I note admin Dougweller perhaps watching this). SOPHIAN's edits are more generally often given bizarre comments, and the ones that are not obviously bizarre often have nothing to do with the edit being performed. Attempts to get clarifications on talk pages are consistently failing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Rubbing out all old comments would be inappropriate. Which did you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned. SOPHIAN's contributions to talkpages are not frequent, but all "interesting", so I thought it was simplest just to point in this direction. I can fully understand that no one wants to go through these edits. Just a few examples, until my fingers get tired, and yes some of these will possibly be other types of problems than the one I mentioned, and not tidied up. Sorry:-

, , , ,,, , , (this within minutes of telling a few admins), , --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The first just removes a warning from his talk page. Thats a different matter. The second removes a block of text, but that seems fair enough, since it hadn't become the subject of debate William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of different types of deletions here. Difficult to look through it all I know. This was only a sample. I still recommend looking through the contributions page as a better way to get an unbiased sample.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Advisory Council on Project Development

I hope you're all looking at the ill-conceived Misplaced Pages:Advisory Council on Project Development William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to put WP:BURO up for deletion. As with "adminship is no big deal," it has degenerated from being a worthy ideal to being a bad joke. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Adminship is no big deal died a fair while ago. BURO is still a worthy and useful ideal William M. Connolley (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Hi. I am tring to make sense of what appears to be a huge mess. I am hoping you can at least answer one question. Of all the people who have edited the article or talk page over the past couple of months, which editors are established (e.g. by checkuser or a preponderance of evidence) sock puppets? And are they all sock puppets of one user, or more than one user? I assume the one user is Muntuwandi but if there is more than one user can you tell me wich sock-puppet gos with which puppeteer? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 02:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed a giant mess. My recollection is that all the socks are of User:Muntuwandi, although when I was there they were effectively socks of User:Wapondaponda, the same person. Doubtless someone watching will correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't seen any evidence that User:AncientObserver, User:Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka, User:Wdford for example, are socks William M. Connolley (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and while you're here: my feeling is that the best thing to do with that page might well be to delete the whole thing and start again. Opinions? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be right ... but I am not an expert on this and would rather see good faith editors talk it out and come up with a plan. The main problem as I see it now is, there are a number of editors who are currently in an antagonist relationship with dab, but these editors do not constitute a homogeneous group, some have otherwise made very constructive edits, and some have not.

Today (14th) I left a lengthy comment that is currently at the bottom of the talk section for the articl. It lays out my own view of how these matters should be handled. Id very much appreciate knowing whether you agree with me or not (and if not, of course, why). Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:51, 14 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)

Inappropriate

Is this. Please do not do that. rootology (C)(T) 20:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Because you're an involved party, and you should leave it to the clerks to deal with. We're admins, we are required in official functions like things circling RFAR cases, especially where we're involved and in risk, as you are, to not do anything of the sort. I know you're often liberal with all sorts of stuff, but you should cool it in a big way until this is resolved. You're going to get a TON of negative evidence laid vs. you, for things like your reversions of criticism of you on ANI threads, incivility, and 'generous' tools use. Admins have been desysopped for less. You don't want that. rootology (C)(T) 20:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So why aren't you leaving it to the clerks to deal with? I'm sure you mean well, but your intervention here doesn't seem to be helpful. Try Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests#Addition of_parties_to_a_pending_RfAr William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Gedanken experiment: What if Abd gave a party and nobody came? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there would be an excellent if lengthy explanation William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, Rootology - you shouldn't raise a fuss about the appropriateness of William's edit, when you misuse rollback in the very next edit to the page. I don't see any evidence that Hip is a party to the RFAR, so removal of the notification doesn't strike me as a big deal. Using rollback to edit war though - that's clearly inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

warned — Rlevse • Talk • 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you. You are suffering from the familiar "false balance". Abd has been told to stop adding people at random. Meanwhile, are you planning on warning R as well? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if you disagree, you should stay out of it as you are a named party in the RFAR. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that Abd randomly pulls names out of a certain body part, we may soon run out of admins that can do something about him... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that you aren't planning on warning R. The arbs and clerks need to keep order on that page, and have been failing to do so. I see that two members of arbcomm are already pleading with Abd for no more walls of text, ho ho William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors have complained about Abds's posting walls of text since (at least) his 2nd failed attempt at RfA back in Feb 2008 (see opposes). I don't know whether it is contempt for the wiki-community or a lack of communication skills which prevent him from editing more harmoniously -could be both. . . or something else. Either way he's gone to a lot of effort to create a battleground here. R. Baley (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Holy walls of text, batman! I didn't know about that one. A close shave, or rather not, thank goodness William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you really reverted critisms of you from ANI? If so, why? Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As you know, I'm fairly evil, so I'm sure you believe I have. I keep a collection of whinging at User:William M. Connolley/Whinging - if you can find the offence and the accusation, do please add it in William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

William, you've indicated your whinging page but where oh where oh where is your coddling page? I want to book a pedicure (remember I'm size 7). Please could it be conducted in silence this time? I'm quite happy with our usual methods of communication by telepathy and time travel. However, I would still like my usual half cup of lapsang souchong in the Royal Worcester chinaware. Mathsci (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There is always User:William M. Connolley/Compliments and endorsements, which is cunningly hidden behind the "+" on my user page. I'm a coffee person, except in the mountains, when mint tea is more portable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes you're lucky having the Gog Magog Hills so close by. At that altitude extra weight is always a problem. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated William M. Connolley (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian 3RR block

I believe that O Fenian (talk · contribs) was operating in the best interests of the project, and that this block on a good faith editor, without so much as a {{uw-3rr}} warning, was a bit of an overreaction in light of the circumstances. In this case, offering to help O Fenian utilize help and tools available to him while addressing the real problem, that of blatant POV editing of a hot topic, would have been a more uncontroversial approach. I strongly feel that WP:IGNOREALLRULES applies here, and that coaching should have been the strongest intervention here. I would really like for you to consider reverting this block, or allowing another admin to do it. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OF doesn't need a warning: as the one reporting the offence, he was fully aware of the rules. And has been blocked twice for 3RR before, the last time being unblocked with User drawn into revert war with multiple IPs. Got carried away. Will block again if happens again.. Ahem. However, if you want to take over responsibility for this matter, you are welcome William M. Connolley (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you semi-protected the page in question. Was it a result of this and if so, perhaps you could mark it as done. --HighKing (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't; I'll take a look William M. Connolley (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:SOPHIAN

What do you when a newbie is also arrogant, knows almost nothing about the subjects he edits on, and refuses to pay attention to attempts at talkpage discussion? I would in case like to request a rollback of these three edits by SOPHIAN , , . These effectively reversed a lot of edits involved in trying to split off a new article E1b1b1a from E1b1b1. None of SOPHIAN's edits show any awareness, but on the other hand, I seem to be unable to make contact with this person. He might as well be on Mars. Despite attempts to discuss things in the past, he has previously insisted on repeatedly reverting attempts to fix cases where he mispelt words or inserted new material into the middle of sentences.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring without discussion. I was tempted to block for having a truely appalling talk page design, but that would be harsh William M. Connolley (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Block

With all due respect, could you please provide proper reasons for blocks? “general feeling of malaise” is certainly not a proper reason for a block. Many thanks, — Aitias // discussion 21:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See the users talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of your statement on the talk page, though, I'd like to ask you to provide a proper block (log) summary. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 22:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The block summary, as a summary, is correct. The talk page provides details William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)