User talk:William M. Connolley
|
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (Creationism Berkhamsted McKitrick Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome Roche limit RST "Tidal force pictures" "Standards & Chemical names"/"Sul?ur" RESPECT Tony Blair Earth's energy budget Free will "Arguments and articles (Ed Poor)"), 6 ("NOAA pictures" "Warnings from Ed" Continental drift POTD*2 "Energy conservation in GR"/amity/misc-Lubos Licensing "Global warming (models)" Ozone climate models Darwin arbcom GR(CT) MM(sigh) "Real force/Baxter basics"(CT) Didcot:photo, 7 (Aug 2004 - Apr 2005: sun dog, Runge's phenomenon, Ferrel cell, Bell Test Loopholes, IPCC's coverage of the topic is not a suitable resource for wiki, RC use of DF pic, JG 3RR and arbcomm, Geography of Australia, Cleon Teunissen, 172, CO2, DF images, Kindness , Solar variation theory, Arbcomm (Cortonin)))
You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page).
If your messages are rude, wandering or repetetive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here & I'll go take a look.
| Contents |
Political Impact
Hi William, it seems that your efforts on the global warming articles even have a political impact :-)
"My staff is bogged down with work. Often, I have to do my own research," says Tan as he waves a printout on global warming from Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia, which he wants to use for a House debate."
from: [1] (http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Saturday/Columns/NST32303203.txt/Article/indexb_html)
-- mkrohn 11:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Blocking bug
Oh, one other thought (not sure if you'd see this on WP:AN/3RR):
One thing you might want to check - when you go to Special:Preferences it should list your "internal ID number" - if that number is the same as the one in the autoblock (#19934) that would probably we worth noting in any bug report. Noel (talk) 18:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Three revert rule
You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 19:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ice Cores
Thanks for your correction to ice core. That'll teach me to properly read the articles I'm editing :) Tonderai 16:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 18:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Thats OK. It helps to work opposite one of the EPICA scientists :-) but everyone else is welcome too.
Three revert rule
You have been blocked for 12 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 04:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From RL
nb: RL's message edited for overfamiliarity & other stuff
William M. Connolley ... deserves credit for both educating hoi polloi (the masses) and actually doing serious research...
But query: does [WMC] receive funds from the Green Party of England or its sympathizers? raylopez99 17:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 19:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)) No.
Life in extreme environments
Hi William,
Maybe its more of a biology question, but I thought you might have some insight. I'm trying to find an article to place this picture. I see it as illustrating 'the tenacity of life in extreme environments'. It can't really go on Extremophile, but biome seems a little unspecific. Any ideas? -- Solipsist 13:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 15:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Hmm. I'm not a bio of course... could it perhaps go into desert/climate? Desert has an veg section. Other than that...
- Thanks, I'd thought about desert#vegitation too. Xerophyte might be an idea, but as we don't know what the plant is, it is difficult to be sure. -- Solipsist 20:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry to intrude, but I was wondering what you meant by "but we don't know what the plant is"? Are you unsure if the species is what you say it is, or are you unsure if that species is a xerophyte? If it's the latter, I suspect it wouldn't be too hard to verify (though anything that can live in Death Valley is likely to be a xerophyte unless it is an ephemeral). Guettarda 21:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'd thought about desert#vegitation too. Xerophyte might be an idea, but as we don't know what the plant is, it is difficult to be sure. -- Solipsist 20:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
I've replaced your figure with a version a little nicer on the eyes. Dragons flight 04:56, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
solar feedbacks
I agree with Cortonin, there are a significant number of papers discussing whether other solar feedbacks exist. I could put together a bibliography of several dozen without having to try very hard. That doesn't mean these papers are neccesarily correct, but in my opinion they are numerous enough to deserve mention. Dragons flight 00:45, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 18:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)) I disagree, because "significant" in this context is wrong. There are a fairly small number of papers, all uncertain. Fortunately C has dropped sig.
- I'm happy to drop the "significant" as well, but I would still disagree that it is a small body of literature, with Svensmark, Marsh, Tinsley, Yu, Palle, Kaas, Kristiansen, Shaviv, Bond, Harrison, Sun, Mangini, Udelhoff, Cess, Kniveton, Todd, Wagner, Pudovkin, Erogrova, etc. the number of people and papers contributed to this area of research is certainly not trivial, and at least some of the authors/papers portray themselves as quite certain. (Though their critics may come out sounding just as certain against them). Perhaps you have not tried to keep up with this area of research?
- P.S. I still intend to go back and argue with C over some of the other points he is trying to make, but that is a longer discussion, and I haven't found the time. Dragons flight 19:17, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 18:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)) It probably depends on how you measure, and what against, and how much you count. Measured against the papers that get the major effect from GHGs, the papers are small (in number, and quality) and contradictory.
Horticern
Perhaps one way to end the greenhouse effect revert war between yourself and Cortonin would be to ask Olivier J. Jolliet to render his opinion. Jolliet is an assistant professor in sustainable development at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology-Lausanne and is the lead author of the Horticern paper that Cortonin has been citing as the basis for his deletions of the section on "Real greenhouses." He has a web page with his biography and email address at http://gecos.epfl.ch/lcsystems/Fichiers_communs/Personnel/Jolliet/Jolliet.html
I suspect that if asked, Jolliet will agree that his paper does not provide support for Cortonin's position. --Sheldon Rampton 05:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 19:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)) I thought of that. I mailed him, but no reply.
- Heh, I almost wrote an email yesterday too, but could not find his email. Thanks :-) -- mkrohn 20:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 20:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)) Well, if you both wrote too, that might jog him!
Taken By Storm
We're seeing a debate on a SourceWatch article where I think you might want to comment. The debate is on the [talk page for Taken by Storm (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Taken_by_Storm), the book by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick which argues there is no global warming. Essex and McKitrick argue:
- In the absence of physical guidance, any rule for averaging temperature is as good as any other. The folks who do the averaging happen to use the arithmetic mean over the field with specific sets of weights, rather than, say, the geometric mean or any other. But this is mere convention.
This claim has been critiqued by Tim Lambert, and Lambert's critique has in turn been challenged on our talk page, by an anonymous contributor who says that Lambert failed to understand the "key part of the argument" made by Essex and McKitrick:
- taking the temperature of something which is not in thermal equilibrium has no theoretic underpinning in science because you're trying to convert an infinitely fine four dimensional temperature field (because it changes over time because its not in thermodynamic equilibrium) into a single number. Without a coherent theory that says how to do that, what you end up with has no physical meaning - it does not represent energy or anything else.
Feel free to weigh in if you have anything to contribute. --Sheldon Rampton 21:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Philip Stott
Hate to spread the "war", but I think the Philip Stott article is sorely in need of balance. I will try to focus back towards his contribution to biogeog, but I don't know the political side at all. Thanks. Guettarda 19:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 20:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)) The article is a mess, as befits something written by JG. But, its pretty obviously PS's POV on it... looking at it, I decided to try chopping it heavily, but not adding any counter-truth. What do you think?
- Well, it's a fairly extreme pruning, but it achieves balance. He is notable as a biogeographer (achieved a lot editing J. Biogeogr., but I must now ask myself whether his POV influenced the content of the journal); looking at what came up when I googled him he also seems to be the media's favourite anti-(everything) crackpot...but quite honestly I knew nothing about him until it came up on the ArbCom thing (is that where JG heard of him too? That's about when he wrote the article). I regularly read J. Biogeogr., but I don't pay attention to journal editors unless I know their pubs. Guettarda 21:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Random words of thanks
Hey, just dropping by for a word of thanks for your blog, and your involvement in RealClimate, and wikipedia. (I only just discovered that you were a wikipedian...) You've helped me alot, particularly with researching stuff about the role of water vapour in the greenhouse effect. So, er, you rule!--Fangz 23:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 22:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)) Thanks for your kind comment!
Real greenhouses
I did some modifying to the greenhouse section of greenhouse effect, trying for some variation in the reverts :-). Cortonin immediatly imported his rather distorted version from solar greenhouse (technical) (which I had deleted from there) - aw well at least now we have some variety in the reverts. Enjoy. Vsmith 15:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 22:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)) I'll take a look, I've been off for the weekend. Interesting events over at the arbcomm...
Experts and wiki
Noticed you starting to write something on experts and Wikipedia, and thought I'd share a thought. Generally, I agree with Larry that experts ought to be given more respect. However, experts sometimes have bias problems. They know a lot, but they're too close to their own subjects. Then, they won't accept criticism from other editors, because those editors are not experts. My personal experience of this is User:Levzur, who believes that his Ph.D. lets him ignore other editors and write all of Wikipedia to his own POV, even when mainstream scholarship is solidly against him.
Looking forward to reading your thoughts. Isomorphic 22:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 22:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)) Hmmm, yes, I look forward to ordering my thoughts into a comprehensible form so I can put them down onto wiki. I think I have something valuable to say about this, but I struggle to express it. I too agree that experts ought to get more respect, but then I am one... then again, there are experts and experts. Certainly, being an expert ought to mean knowing whats in the literature and editing with it, not against it. I'll keep working on the thoughts, especially now I know that some people at least are reading them!
- I'm interested in reading (though no necessarily participating in) this discussion, too. El_C 23:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin
Given the fact that only two of the people involved in the longstanding dispute over the climate change articles are in this case, any arbitration action against either of those two will likely not be effective in stopping these edit wars - even temporarily. After giving several days for my fellow arb com members to object, I now ask you to file a new request for arbitration against other users you feel have been part of these edit wars for some time. Don't bother naming people on 'your side' of the dispute; I'm sure the other party to this case will do that. File at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, creating a section for 'Climate change dispute' (or adding to it if the other party has already created it) and ask for that dispute to be added to your case. --mav 13:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 16:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)) OK, thanks. At the present time, I'll add JonGwynne, having (it would seem) resolved my differences with SEW. [Now added].
- (William M. Connolley 17:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)) PS: I'm not at all sure about your "any arbitration action against either of those two will likely not be effective in stopping these edit wars - even temporarily". Obviously, my "side" is right :-). As to the other side: the recent burst of nonsense-wars has largely been due to Cortonin/JG. Other skeptics are generally prepared to be reasonable, although SEW verges on the silly sometimes (MWP/LIA) and shows a distinct lack of respect for expertise.
Temporary injunction
Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:
Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_effect&diff=prev&oldid=14076250) [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_effect&diff=prev&oldid=14072065) [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_effect&diff=prev&oldid=13847381) [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_effect&diff=prev&oldid=13828814) [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_greenhouse_%28technical%29&diff=0) by William M. Connolley [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_effect&diff=0) [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick&diff=prev&oldid=14082906) [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=14085987) [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=14077463) [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_effect&diff=prev&oldid=14083726) Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case.
--mav 22:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Three revert rule
You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 00:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Mountain infobox changes
Hi. We are currently discussing changes to the layout of the Mountain infobox used by WikiProject Mountains as well as moving back to the use of templates for the infobox. If you are interested, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/General. RedWolf 05:12, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 20:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)) Thanks, had a look, I think I'm going to leave it up to you lot, being a bit busy elsewhere. Hopefully I'll get some climbing done sometime and rekindle my interest...
Image:Sealevel.png
Sometime in the next week or so, I am planning to put together a data driven plot of sea level during the last 20 kyr. I am tempted to just overwrite your figure Image:Sealevel.png, but I didn't want to do that without asking first. If you would like to preserve your plot, just tell me and I'll give mine a different name, but I do think your figure will probably be redundant in the sea level article. One difference though, my plot probably will not show the rate of change, one of the trade offs for having greater detail is that the rate of change gets more variable and I think it would clutter the figure to include that as well as the sea level data points used to constrain the curve. Dragons flight 22:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 13:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) A better plot would be an excellent idea - thank you. But, it seems unnecessary to overwrite the old one, which (with its rate of change) may still be of some use. So could you use a different name?
Arbitration Committee case merged
The Arbitration Committee has accepted the case against JonGwynne to be merged with the current case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin. Please bring any additional evidence you may have to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
From Ed: new project
You asked to be notified. As promised, you are the first one I'm telling about the Encyclopedia Project (http://www.encyclopediaproject.net/index.html) that I'm in. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 21:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) Thanks for telling me. I shall certainly go and have a look.
I keep forgetting that you're famous. Hmm. What's it like being notable, and yet remaining modest about that? I don't know too many people like that. Yet another reason I'm proud to count you among my friends. Well, keep "cool", doc! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:55, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 21:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)) Thanks Ed. Its nice being notable, though I doubt the fame bit, but I'm working on it. Thanks also for the changes on the RFC, even if I'm not quite there yet. I looked at the new encyc: I guess its just a shell at the moment? I couldn't make it do anything.
- Yes, sorry, I'm afraid you won't be getting in unless they hire you as a writer. The initial plan is to keep everything under wraps until 2008. Naturally, I'm pushing for an interim release at a much earlier date. But I'm only tech support, I don't make policy.
- Oooh! Maybe they'll get Fred Singer to write the global warming article. If so, would like to get an advance copy? (For comments and criticism, of course. And only if they let me.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Ah... I hadn't appreciated that. 2008 is quite a long way away. Um, I've seen quite enough of FS's writing, I don't think I need to see any more :-)
Speedy delete
The problem was that Ssmr doesn't meet the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (and, of course, "redirects are cheap"). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 21:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)) Yes it does: general, number 7: Any page which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the page was edited only by its author.. Of course it doesn't fit that any more :-(
- (William M. Connolley 22:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)) But... this is trivia, and there are better things to do! So don't worry about it (if you were...). "This matter concerned him not one whit; At once, he had forgotten it..." (from the ballad of Jon Diamond, by Francis Roads).
- That'll teach me to reread pages before pointing other people in their direction... sorry. Still, redirects are cheap, and I always think that if the creator of the page can make a mistake, less knowledgeable people are even more likely to make it, so the redirect could turn out to be useful. Still, I can speedy it if you still want it to be (my edit doesn't count, surely — you made the request before I'd stuck my big feet into it). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 22:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)) No no, by now I think we can leave it. Save your energy for Ross McKitrick :-)
SEPP
Also, you removed:
- The SEPP site appears to be becoming out of date: it lists three science advisors [12] (http://www.sepp.org/boarddir.html) who are dead (William Mitchell, William Nierenberg and Michael J. Higatsberger); the "key issues" page [13] (http://www.sepp.org/keyissue.html) says that "weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever" - this has not been true for some years (see satellite temperature measurements). The "New on the web" (http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/newsepp.html) and "The Week That Was" (http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/weekwas.html) links are kept up to date. For reports and analyses of particular publications, it is probably best to search the site on one of the authors.
on the grounds that it was questionable. Why was it questionnable? Do you think they are alive? Do you think that having dead people listed on your board of directors is irrelevant? Do you disagree with the satellite stuff? I'm a bit confused about what you're trying to do.
- I think it is of questionable neutrality. It sounds like the authors of the article are ganging up on SEPP, saying, not only does their web site suck, but they are factually incorrect about global warming. While these claims may both be true, they don't seem very neutral. I will attempt to tweak the wording, and in general, to fix the article, as you requested. -- Beland 02:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
US Politics and CC
Thought you might be interested:
- Bush official altered scientific reports on global warming: report
- WASHINGTON (AFP) - A White House official with no scientific training reportedly edited government climate reports to play down the links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, according to internal documents...[14] (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050608/pl_afp/usenvironmentclimate_050608142225)
--Ben 09:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes I am interested. Also http://www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp?Id=1900. I'm just wondering what to do with it...
- Golly, almost as bad as IPCC officials with political axes to grind editing independent scientific reports to play up the links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, according to scientists whose words were deleted / misconstrued. (See IPCC controversy). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Lomborg article
William, could you take a look at the latest changes to the article on Bjorn Lomborg [[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bj%F8rn_Lomborg&diff=0&oldid=15089318)]. They don't seem appropriate to me, in that they claim unspecified critics of Lomborg to be in error, but don't give any more support for this than a link to a letter to the Scientific American. As a newbie, I don't want to go in and reverse the changes, in case they are OK or some different action is appropirate.
John Quiggin
- Hi John - good to see you about. If you're interested, you can just wade in. Explain what you've done on the talk page if you feel doubtful. The BL page... is likely to be a mess, since it gets fought over. I'm reluctant to get involved (though I'm watching) till the GW mess is sorted out. BTW, don't forget to sign your name: ~~~~ - use 4 tildas. William M. Connolley 08:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC).
The Unsigning One
Oh, yeah, the dark sides of Wikipedia. But for one point, Mr. X is right: the problem is already enshrined in policy. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, even if best intended, now serves as defense for every crackpottery. And even perfectly good articles become fat. Simply too large. Until recently, I didn't see that problem, but we had some heated discussions on this on de.wikipedia, and now even a fork has been started, to fight (amongst other things) overweight articles. --Pjacobi 21:30, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
- Wiki-is-not-paper isn't the end of it, there really is no policy one way or another, and most people still accept the 32k-is-about-the-limit. So... I think that particular anon just isn't going to talk (or rather, will talk forever but in circles). But if The Good Guys|Gals can agree, things should be OK. I'm inclined to give it a day or two, and if no-one else weighs in, refactor along the lines on talk. William M. Connolley 21:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).
- The 32k limit is double-edged sword. You can use it to fight the articles getting huge, but it will be used to enlarge the topic's treatment by metastasis. --Pjacobi 07:00, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
I think the 32k limit is just aesthetic. It keeps the taxonomy and outlined argument (in the encylopedic formalised, NPOV sort of argument) succint. The reader can read about the general sections, and an overview, then increasingly go to more specific sections, rather then the reader have to sort out an extremely overwhelming page with a lot of detail that could be moved to their own articles for aesthetic reasons (apoptosis is an example of something that should be split off into their own articles for specific detailed sections). -- Natalinasmpf 22:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
WikiGo
Since I see you're a Go player, have you seen WikiGo? Thought you might be interested. Not too many active participants currently, but that's exactly why I wanted to bring that to your attention. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 22:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It only gets worse
If you want to increase your Wiki pain, I suggest these candidates for your watch list:
- Aetherometry
- Aetherometric Technologies
- Experimental Aetherometry
- Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity
Pjacobi 18:59, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Sigh. Still (in pursuit of the sanity of wiki and the promotion of science not non-science) I'm prepared to try to help. It would be nice if the admins were prepared to help by applying the 3RR rule... there is some curious reluctance there that I simply don't understand. My suggestions:
- Create a "complete and utter b*ll*cks" tag: "this article is total twaddle; having said that, we're prepared to let the wackos have their say: read on at your peril..." and then leave the rest of it alone. Fun, but... that sort of article really needs to be...
- Put them up for VFD
- Make certain articles only editable by registered users. Is this possible? It might help.
William M. Connolley 22:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).
I've been bold. I've made the last 3 into redirects to the first. It looks to me like these are just commercial spam, anyway.
It IS commercial spam, and probably snake oil too, and pseudoscience...it reminds me of all the "activated oxygen" links you find on google, and conspiracy theories about no landing on Mars. I'm going to put it up on vfd. I'm normally an inclusionist, but this article would well undermine the professionalism of Wikipedia, and we also do not need more ignorance and corporate propaganda being thrust onto the masses. -- Natalinasmpf 23:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My RFA
Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 23:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Congratulations on your adminship, I know you'll be valuable. William M. Connolley 08:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).
help with classifying clouds
Since you would have knowledge in the area I need some help with classifying clouds seen in these images, Image:Mount Kinabalu Clouds 1.jpg, Image:Mount Kinabalu Clouds 2.jpg and Image:Mount Kinabalu Clouds 3.jpg, and the clouds might of course be different for each picture and within each picture as well. I felt they should be included somewhere where they could be useful, but for example, the cloud article is already saturated, but I don't know where the further classifications of pages they could go to. (In case it suddenly seems weird, the photos were taken from an altitude of 2500-3000 metres in Sabah, Malaysia from a mountain.) Thanks! -- Natalinasmpf 20:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Sadly, I have to decline this - my knowledge of cloud types is near zero. I'll take a look later but douht I'll be of any use. William M. Connolley 08:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC).