Jump to content

User talk:William M. Connolley/Old Talk 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Appeal for help with Creationism article[edit]

Hi there, I think you may remember me as one of the people who consistently removed the silly Lincoln/Darwin birthday coincidence from the Darwin article. Anyway, I recently read the creationism article on wikipedia, and was alarmed at how totally uncritical the article was. I have added a 'criticism of creationism' section to the article, and have added a small amount of content to this. However, I am appealing to you (and to a number of other people) to help me both extend this criticism, and to make sure it remains inside the article, as there are quite a large number of creationists who are trying to prevent such changes. I thought with your background in science you might be interested in this, although I wouldn't blame you if the thought of the likely frustration of arguing with creationists didn't exactly appeal to you. Anyway, hope you can help. Thanks Aaarrrggh 21:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I'll take a look.

Berkhamsted School "not prestigious"[edit]

A towering and misrepresentative assertion! Oh well, it was good marketing whilst it lasted. Jbou


Does this mean anything to you? McKitrick screws up yet again. You seem to be the GW expert around here so I thought I’d share. If it's not important or insignificant then I apologize in advance for bothering you with it.--GD 09:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 10:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Hi. Thanks for telling me of this. Its not important from a scientific point of view - the original McK paper that TL is (perhaps) demolishing wasn't important - but its rather interesting from a politics POV, since McK has made a great play of his "audit" of Mann et al. So if he can't distinguish radians and degrees correctly, he will look silly, and his (already weak) critique will lose force. It looks to me as though what TL has done is simple enough to check, and interesting enough that I will have a go.
(William M. Connolley 11:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Hmmm, having had a look at the files at the language (shazam) re-running it in a nother language (without understanding the paper) may be tricky. OTOH I may try reading the paper.

Tidal force pictures[edit]

Could you add small inward arrows at the object's poles? The tidal force at the up/down poles (for a spherical object) is half that at its near/far poles, and points in instead of out...(I suppose the front/back poles also have the same inward tidal force, but there's no way to show that on this two-dimensional diagram)

Urhixidur 03:54, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Thanks for the suggestion. What I have done is leave the cartoon untouched, but add a link to a newly-drawn calculated version, which shows the tidal forces as calculated. I've just noticed that I've put the mass on a different side this time... oh dear. Tomorrow.


By all means list it on VFD. I'll support deletion. There's a history of the article as of February 2004 at Talk:Reciprocal System of Theory/Archive 6#Edit War 4. Since then a few other people have been working on it. -- Tim Starling 11:57, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

The article does need some explanation of tidal force to be self-contained.

(William M. Connolley 21:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Perhaps (though I am against repeating stuff on other pages) but it should do so accurately. Of course, in real physical terms there are centrifugal forces, but they are everywhere repulsive (errr, except at the poles...). Several people (mostly on the tidal forces page) has discussed the centrifugal force under the assumption that it all arises from the motion-round-the-sun (ie, a tide-locked moon) whereas usually the moon itself is rotating too.

I'm thinking of putting up on VfD -not because it's a hoax, since you have established that it is not, but because it is non notable and therfore IMO not possible to NPOV it effectively. Would you support deletion?

(William M. Connolley 10:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Putting it onto VfD might be a reasonable idea, to clear the air. I would oppose deletion, weakly.
::OK I'm just waiting to see what user:Nunh-huh has to say. Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 11:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

someone seems to have cropped the top. BTW, I can't see the jagged edges.

Yes that was me, as mentioned in the reply to User:Oska. I also removed the diagonal line of sunlight from the background (probably overdone though).
The wierd thing is that after five or six failed uploads yesterday, the File History only lists the original even though the image has actually changed. Since the file history is corrupt, you can't check the earlier versions. -- Solipsist 21:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Confusing (sorry I missed your reply to Oska). I was just going to edit the top, and had downloaded the pic from wiki, when I noticed the top wasn't ragged and couldn't see the jags either. And I checked the pic history and (as you say) it only shows the original. Weird. I thought I liked the diagonal line of light in the background too... now I'm less sure... the sculpture stands out better this way.
The jaggies were there in the original, although I think they came from the resizing rather than the jpg encoding. To get rid of them I did an exactly 50% reduction rather than reducing to an even 1024 pix.
I'm in two minds about the diagonal sunlight line. At the end of the day I think it was distracting, but on the other hand the original image was more honest. Trouble is, after I have spent some time retouching to make the background to be neutral, I'm more inclined to favour the end result. Now I think my perspective has gone, but without the image history it is difficult to canvas the opinion of a fresh eye. -- Solipsist 22:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Standards & Chemical names[edit]

Hi - I've been trying to help standardize the chemical & mineral names on Wikipedia along with some others.

IUPAC is "The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) is an international non-governmental organization devoted to the advancement of chemistry. It has as its members national chemistry societies. It is the recognized authority in developing standards for the naming of chemical compounds, through its Interdivisional Committee on Nomenclature and Symbols".

Quoting from: American and British English differences

"sulphur sulfur The American spelling is the international standard in the sciences, although many British scientists use the British spelling."
Vsmith 17:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)) But all through the IPCC tar its sulphate. I don't mind if people write sulfate. I do object to people "correcting" to the american spelling. You mentioned wiki policy was in favour of your interpretation: what do you mean? I recall a policy of inconsistent spellings.

A quote from Wiki Manual_of_Style#Scientific_style:
In articles about chemicals and chemistry, use IUPAC names for chemicals wherever possible, except in article titles, where the common name should be used if different, followed by mention of the IUPAC name.
Sulfur, sulfate and sulfide are the standard as mentioned in the quote previously mentioned. As such they are preferred in scientific articles with exceptions for archaic or historical contexts and some very region specific cases. Just working toward clarity and consistency.
Vsmith 00:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 08:42, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)) As you'll have noticed, this is an article about global warming, not chemistry.

Yup - saw that. And Global Warming is either a socio-political debate or a subject of scientific study by applying atmospheric chemistry and physics principles. If it is to have meaning, it is about chemistry. I haven't continued the spelling battle - it is a minor thing. sulphate aerosols in general is a fuzzy phrase which needs clarification, but not now. Vsmith 12:07, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So its not an article about chemicals or chemistry.

Didn't say that. Global warming is largely about atmospheric chemistry, is it not? -Vsmith 15:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No. Chemistry is a fairly minor component of the theory. If its "mostly" anything, its mostly radiation.

Hmm? But, it is the various gas molecules that absorb and re-radiate that radiation (IR from earth absorbed and re-radiated back to earth or bounced around in the atmosphere thereby increasing temp.) Or it is the DMS produced aerosols that creat cloud condensation nuclei & increase the albedo & cool the earth. It's the interactions between the atmospheric chemicals (man made or natural) and the radiation that is causing the changes observed. And these gases and aerosols are chemicals and their interaction with radiation is chemistry. So, no - it is not mostly radiation. It is mostly chemistry. -Vsmith 16:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just like swimming is mostly chemistry, because water is a chemical.

Very funny. If your models or hypotheses lack a sound basis in atmospheric chemistry then they would seem to be in the realm of fiction. Good day. -Vsmith 03:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

William, please stop this embarrassing tantrum. I understand you've put a lot of work into Global Warming and you've done an admirable job, it's a great article, but this is wikipedia and you don't OWN it. Sulfate is not merely "the American spelling" anymore, it is now the international spelling as agreed upon in almost all international scientific organizations(and some purely british ones too). This is a scientific article which requires the now right and proper spelling of sulfur. In the past I have assisted you in defending the scientific rigour of several other articles like Ozone hole and the like against assault from religious and extremely conservative (false) ideologues, let's concentrate on continuing that good fight and not on a silly pissing contest over an antiquated term which is quickly falling out of disuse worldwide. Again, there is no "American bias" here William, for instance, all scientific articles are also required to use the IUPAC and quentessentially British spelling "Aluminium". --Deglr6328 15:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 17:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Wiki policy is not to change spelling. In purely or mainly chemical articles, the policy appears to use american spelling, but GW is not about chemistry - unless you're going to revive Vsmiths "its about co2 and co2 is a chemical" argument above.
Mr.Connolley I must admit I am surprised and amused that such a scientific and rational man would display such irrational obstinance. I have copied this discussion to the article discussion and submitted it to requests for comment. Regretfully yours. --Deglr6328 21:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
One minor point: on the Kyoto Protocol page, you change sulfur to sulphur and then ask others not to change it because "its a 'quotation'." If it is indeed a direct quotation, might I ask you to put quotation marks around it. If it is an indirect quotation, would you agree that it need not be exactly as it appeared in the original? HistoryBA 12:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

/* Details of the agreement */

(William M. Connolley 15:11, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I didn't *change* f to ph: I reverted it. I've re-found the quote and put it into quotes.
Thanks for putting in the quotation marks. I wonder, however, about your explanation, where you seem to refer to me as a member of the "F brigade." Frankly, I don't care how you spell sulfur/sulphur. I do, however, think that it is important to put direct quotations in quotation marks. If you want to invent an imaginary "brigade" for me, why don't you call it the "plagiarism brigade," rather than the "F brigade"? HistoryBA 20:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 08:28, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Sorry - the f/ph stuff has been a bit annoying. You're right - all you were doing is asking for quotes. I apologise to you.


Er, shouldn't you wait 'til you get some responses to the WP:RFC before you make anymore changes to sul?ur? Tom - Talk

(William M. Connolley 18:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Its not my RFC but you're probably right. I'm off down the pub now anyway...

Thanks for your attempts at keeping an NPOV in the article. Keep up the good work! Warofdreams 11:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your sarcasm and your slander of RESPECT. What else would we expect from a member of an organisation (The Green Party) that is openly hostile and red baiting towards RESPECT. What a shame and a missed opportunity at unity because of hostility on your side.
(William M. Connolley 18:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)) The above by User: T bone, and demonstrates the SWP attitude nicely. At least I assume TB is SWP, though afaik he isn't saying.

Hi William. I have just discovered that you are the climate guru around here. I wonder if you would be kind enough to visit the aforementioned article some time, just to check it for obvious mistakes. It's fairly recent, so you might not have noticed it yet. I promise that I'm thinking about creating a diagram for it, but I don't want to plagiarise what's already on the web - and anyway, I find those slanting-reflected-rays diagrams a bit hard to interpret. Regards --Heron 21:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Ha ha, yes, I noticed you creating it and I thought "wots going on ere thats my turf..." but then I read it and couldn't think of any obvious way to improve it :-). I'll have another look now and leave any comments there.

It is hardly a major innovation when in fact it was a reversion to the historical role of the bank in setting interest rates, which it was able to do from its inception until somewhere early in the 20th century. Innovation, in my dictionary at least, has to do with a newness. This is anything but. Sjc 12:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:04, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)) wrt to the politics/economics of the last 50 years at least it was a major innovation.

Free will compatibilist paradox[edit]

ParagonX 02:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC): You state the paradox is poorly thought out, yet I see nothing obviously wrong with it. Care to expand on your comment?

(William M. Connolley 10:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I thought I had, on t:FW. I will.

Arguments and articles[edit]

In an edit summary, you wrote:

Ed, you've lost countless arguments on the GW pages, don't re-open them here.

It sounds like you're confusing two diffenet things, Dr. C.

  1. Convincing other contributors to abandon their old POV and adopt the contrary POV; and,
  2. Writing an article which fairly treats 2 contrary points of view.

I'm not interested in arguing with you. I just want Wikipedia science articles to be accurate and neutral. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 17:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 17:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Hi Ed. Well I didn't expect you to like it, any more than you expected me to like The only "link" is in your mind. You also know that there are 2 approaches to NPOV that are hard to reconcile: presenting both arguments and letting them fight it out, or presenting a balanced view. I prefer the latter.
Ouch, I should roll around naked in the Antarctic snow for 3 minutes, as penance. Well, thanks for not freezing me out of the discussion, and thanks for your solid grasp of the philosophy of the issue. By the way, have I ever mentioned that I really like the pictures on your website? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 11:07, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Glad you like the pics. You can have the latest version of KP: consensus? Surely not! BTW, though, GWH has been a redirect to GW for some time now.